Derivative: Difference between revisions

From Objective Mathematics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
mNo edit summary
 
(3 intermediate revisions by the same user not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
The '''derivative''' <math>f'(x)</math>, of a differentiable function <math>f(x)</math>, is the slope of the tangent line of <math>f</math> at <math>x</math>. [TODO]
Note that this definition does not talk about taking a limit as epsilon goes to 0.
For some functions (indeed, many functions), there is a way to write <math>f'(x)</math> in terms of other known functions. That is, there is a relationship between the concept <math>f'(x)</math>, and other concepts. This need not be the case in general.
== Old stuff [TODO delete] ==
Let <math>f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> be a [[function]], and let <math>\epsilon : \mathbb{Q}_{>0}</math>. I define <math>\Delta_\epsilon f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> by<math display="block">(\Delta_\epsilon f) (x) := \frac{f(x + \epsilon) - f(x)}{\epsilon}, \quad x : \mathbb{Q}. </math>I say that <math>f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> is '''differentiable''' at <math>x:\mathbb{Q}</math>, if <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f)(x) - (\Delta_{\epsilon'} f)(x) </math> is [[nill]] whenever <math>\epsilon, \epsilon' : \mathbb{Q}_{>0} </math> are both nill.  
Let <math>f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> be a [[function]], and let <math>\epsilon : \mathbb{Q}_{>0}</math>. I define <math>\Delta_\epsilon f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> by<math display="block">(\Delta_\epsilon f) (x) := \frac{f(x + \epsilon) - f(x)}{\epsilon}, \quad x : \mathbb{Q}. </math>I say that <math>f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> is '''differentiable''' at <math>x:\mathbb{Q}</math>, if <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f)(x) - (\Delta_{\epsilon'} f)(x) </math> is [[nill]] whenever <math>\epsilon, \epsilon' : \mathbb{Q}_{>0} </math> are both nill.  


If <math>f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> is differentiable at <math>x:\mathbb{Q}</math>, then I define the '''derivative''' of <math>f</math> at <math>x</math> as <math>f'(x) := (\Delta_\epsilon f)(x) </math>, for some nill <math>\epsilon : \mathbb{Q}_{>0}</math>.
If <math>f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math> is differentiable at <math>x:\mathbb{Q}</math>, then I define the '''derivative''' of <math>f</math> at <math>x</math> as <math>f'(x) := (\Delta_\epsilon f)(x) </math>, for some nill <math>\epsilon : \mathbb{Q}_{>0}</math>.


== Criticism ==
=== Criticism ===
This definition makes things way more complicated. I will demonstrate this with the following example. Let's suppose that <math>f(x) = x^3</math> so <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f)(x) = 3x^2 + 3\epsilon x + \epsilon^2 </math> and <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f - \Delta_{\epsilon'} f)(x) = 3 (\epsilon - \epsilon' )x + ( \epsilon^2 - \epsilon'^2)</math>. And let's say that we are in a context where anything with absolute value below 0.1 is nill. Let <math>\epsilon  = 0.091 </math> and <math>\epsilon' = 0.001</math>. Then <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f - \Delta_{\epsilon'} f)(x) = 0.27 x + 0.00828 </math>. This quantity is greater than 0.1, and thus non-nill, when <math>x > 0.339\overline{703}</math>, so we reach the seemingly absurd conclusion that <math>f(x) = x^3</math> is not differentiable where <math>x > 0.339\overline{703}</math>.   
This definition makes things way more complicated. I will demonstrate this with the following example.  
 
Let's suppose that <math>f(x) = x^3</math> so <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f)(x) = 3x^2 + 3\epsilon x + \epsilon^2 </math> and <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f - \Delta_{\epsilon'} f)(x) = 3 (\epsilon - \epsilon' )x + ( \epsilon^2 - \epsilon'^2)</math>. And let's say that we are in a context where anything with absolute value below 0.1 is nill. Let <math>\epsilon  = 0.091 </math> and <math>\epsilon' = 0.001</math>. Then <math>(\Delta_\epsilon f - \Delta_{\epsilon'} f)(x) = 0.27 x + 0.00828 </math>. This quantity is greater than 0.1, and thus non-nill, when <math>x > 0.339\overline{703}</math>, so we reach the seemingly absurd conclusion that <math>f(x) = x^3</math> is not differentiable where <math>x > 0.339\overline{703}</math>.   
 
More generally, if <math>\nu : \mathbb{Q}_{>0}</math> is the nill cutoff (where we also assume <math>\nu \leq 1</math>), then <math>f(x) = x^3</math> is only "differentiable" in the region <math display="block">-\frac{1}{3}(1 + \nu) < x < \frac{1}{3}(1 - \nu)</math>This seems like an absurd conclusion.
 
=== Polynomial derivatives ===
Somewhat interesting, but also somewhat obvious vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW4jM0smS_E


This complication is not present in the standard definition of derivative, where the remainder terms go away in the limit and we are just left with <math>f'(x) = 3 x^2 </math>. It's not completely clear whether or not this complication is a problem. Those pesky terms are measuring something real, which calculus is ignoring. They are measuring the difference between two different methods of finding the slope of the tangent line to a real curve.
You can get the tangent line to a polynomial without actually invoking limits. My guess is that you can also get the tangent line to a rational function somehow.

Latest revision as of 02:01, 2 July 2024

The derivative , of a differentiable function , is the slope of the tangent line of at . [TODO]

Note that this definition does not talk about taking a limit as epsilon goes to 0.

For some functions (indeed, many functions), there is a way to write in terms of other known functions. That is, there is a relationship between the concept , and other concepts. This need not be the case in general.

Old stuff [TODO delete]

Let be a function, and let . I define by

I say that is differentiable at , if is nill whenever are both nill.

If is differentiable at , then I define the derivative of at as , for some nill .

Criticism

This definition makes things way more complicated. I will demonstrate this with the following example.

Let's suppose that so and . And let's say that we are in a context where anything with absolute value below 0.1 is nill. Let and . Then . This quantity is greater than 0.1, and thus non-nill, when , so we reach the seemingly absurd conclusion that is not differentiable where .

More generally, if is the nill cutoff (where we also assume ), then is only "differentiable" in the region

This seems like an absurd conclusion.

Polynomial derivatives

Somewhat interesting, but also somewhat obvious vid https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oW4jM0smS_E

You can get the tangent line to a polynomial without actually invoking limits. My guess is that you can also get the tangent line to a rational function somehow.