Derivative: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
(2 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. | This definition makes things way more complicated. I will demonstrate this with the following example. | ||
Line 9: | Line 16: | ||
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. | 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 | |||
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
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
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.