|
|
Line 4: |
Line 4: |
|
| |
|
| == 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. |
|
| |
|
| 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.
| | 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. |
Revision as of 22:58, 28 January 2024
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.