Derivative: Difference between revisions
mNo edit summary |
|||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Let <math>f : \mathbb{Q} \rightarrow \mathbb{Q}</math>, 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>. |
Revision as of 22:17, 28 January 2024
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 .
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 . 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.