0

Say there is a function $f(x)=x^2$

Now take any point $X$ on the line. This will correspond to coordinates $(x,y)$. Now take a small change $dx$ to the left and add it to $x$.


This would mean that the co-ordinates of the new point would move to such that $x_1=x+ dx$ and similarly for $y_1=y + dy$

Difference in these two $y$ or $dy$ equals $$ \begin{aligned} (x+ dx)^2 - x^2 &= x^2-x^2+dx^2+2x\cdot dx \\ &= dx^2+2x\cdot dx \end{aligned} $$

Now as we make $dx$ smaller and smaller $dy$ also gets smaller. We could do this and stop just before the point $X$. Now change in $x$ would be only the point $x_1$ itself I.e. $dx = \text{Point } x_1$.

Since this is a $0$ dimensional quantity, we deduce the following:

$dx^2$ will become 0 as a point multiplied by itself is the point itself(as it is in 2 dimension, I am not saying that the point itself has no value).

Now $dy/dx=2x$ or for every unit time we experience a change of $2x$.

Questions:

  1. Is my use of $dx$ as a point right?

  2. Is my postulate that the distance between two consecutive points is the smallest value there is on a line correct? And if so is it what mathematicians mean by instantaneous rate of change?

  3. Following 2. does this sidestep the paradox of how there exists instantaneous change by describing this change with respect to another point I.e. the point immediately next to it?

  4. So Finally is all a derivative is, is a formula derived from differences between two $y$ values by using the fact that they all have a particular way of increasing (ex. for function of area of circle they increase by its perimeter no matter what $x$ is)?

talbi
  • 896
  • Welcome. Try to format using $ signs; like this: $x^2\,dx$ looks like $x^2,dx$. The \, just adds a small space – FShrike Nov 13 '21 at 11:51
  • 1
    Do you know what a limit is? – Fakemistake Nov 13 '21 at 12:07
  • This is very difficult to read. Please format the math properly, choose your symbols more carefully, and work on your punctuation. Your ideas seem roughly correct, but it’s hard to tell since your writing is so difficult to understand. – bubba Nov 13 '21 at 12:20
  • @bubba sorry my first time posting here i just formatted my answer – Sakthi Tharan Nov 13 '21 at 12:23
  • I helped you a little. It still needs more work. – bubba Nov 13 '21 at 12:25
  • Use $dx$ as a point? Some people do that. But beginners are confused by it. – GEdgar Nov 13 '21 at 12:26
  • @Fakemistake I know what a limit is in terms of definition I.e. that it is a value that the function approaches for a input. However I intuitively understand it as given a upper and lower limit for the output we could say that output is between those limits. What I don't understand is why we calculate limit as we could simply get the value of the needed output by plugging in the input. – Sakthi Tharan Nov 13 '21 at 12:31
  • Regarding $(2)$, what is a continuous point? Either there is the notion of a 'point' or 'continuous at a point'. If it's a new term you coined, you need to describe it. – ultralegend5385 Nov 13 '21 at 12:31
  • @ultralegend5385 a function is continuous if it is defined at all points. So This means that this function curve is only made of points I.e. they are stacked up together without any distance between them .I think a better word is consecutive which i will edit. – Sakthi Tharan Nov 13 '21 at 12:57
  • Not all continuous functions are defined on all of $\mathbb{R}$. Take $f: [0, 1] \to \mathbb{R}$ given by $f(x) = x^2$. This function is continuous but $f(2)$ is not defined. – Rick Does Math Nov 13 '21 at 12:59
  • @RickDoesMath yes and if function at a point is not defined then it does not have a slope and hence does not have a derivative. In the above case 2x is not defined as x is not defined. – Sakthi Tharan Nov 13 '21 at 13:03
  • 2
    You didn't understand what i'm saying. Let $f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$ the function given by $f(x) = 0$ for $x \in \mathbb{Q}$ and $f(x) = 1$ for $x \notin \mathbb{Q}$. This function is defined everywhere, but it's continuous nowhere. You are confusing the function being "defined" and continuity. – Rick Does Math Nov 13 '21 at 13:06
  • 1
    "Is my postulate that the distance between two consecutive points is the smallest value there is on a line correct?" No. There is no smallest distance. No matter how close $x_1$ is to $x,$ there is always a value $x_2 = \frac12(x_1 + x)$ that is between $x_1$ and $x,$ that is, $x_2$ is not $x$ but is closer to $x$ than $x_1$ is. Moreover, if $dx = x - x_1 \neq 0,$ then $(dx)^2 \neq 0.$ – David K Nov 13 '21 at 13:58
  • 1
    What you are trying to do here looks a lot like the very early work in calculus, prior to the definition of the derivative as a limit. They would have taken an infinitesimal $o$ and computed $(x+o)^2 - x^2 = 2xo + o^2$, which would be said to be $2x$ times the infinitesimal change (losing the last term somewhere along the way), hence the derivative is $2x.$ But defining all of this in a way that is mathematically acceptable is actually quite difficult. The argument over whether it is possible to do it rigorously was only settled in the 1960s. – David K Nov 13 '21 at 14:16
  • @DavidK But that pre supposes $x_1$ and x have a divisible length. The distance between point x and the same point $x$ is zero. So the distance between $x$ and $x_1$ is not equal to zero but it is equal to value of the $x_1$.Now can we divide the point $x_1$ by 2?Since the dimensions differ and we are dividing a lower dimension by a upper dimension I think the end result is basically meaningless and perhaps irrelevant. – Sakthi Tharan Nov 13 '21 at 14:21
  • @DavidK Well that's interesting and I wish to read more about it. What resources do you suggest I look at? – Sakthi Tharan Nov 13 '21 at 14:24
  • "But that pre supposes $x_1$ and $x$ have a divisible length." Yes, it presupposes that we are doing calculus over the real numbers. The "length" between two numbers is a number and all numbers can be divided. Even in non-standard analysis (with infinitesimals), every number (even an infinitesimal) can be divided. – David K Nov 13 '21 at 14:30
  • I don't have any references that are both accessible to a calculus student and explain infinitesimals as rigorously as a good textbook explains the derivative as a limit. I have been reliably informed that Abraham Robinson's work in the 1960s is good, but I think you may need a PhD in mathematical logic to understand it properly. – David K Nov 13 '21 at 14:35
  • Regarding $(3)$, no this does not, at all, sidestep the paradox. There is nothing such as a point "immediately next" to some other point. – ultralegend5385 Nov 14 '21 at 03:44
  • What I don't understand is why we calculate limit as we could simply get the value of the needed output by plugging in the input. --- See the example under "Update" to Paramanand Singh's answer to Why doesn't derivative difference quotient violate the epsilon-delta definition of a limit?. – Dave L. Renfro Nov 15 '21 at 14:13

1 Answers1

1

Maybe this explanation can provide an intuition for the idea of " instantaneous velocity". I do not make any attenpt at rigor in this answer , for rigor in Analysis exceeds my ability.

Suppose that an object moves in a straight line under the action of a force, meaning that the object accelerates, and that its velocity is changing. The question " what is the instantaneous velocity of this object at time $t$? " can be rephrased as : "at what constant velocity would the object continue to move in case the force instantaneously stopped to act on the body? " . The constant velocity in this counterfactual scenario is what is meant by " instantaneous velocity".

Suppose that, under the action of the force, the function describing the movement of the object is $D(t)= t^2$.

In case the force suddenly stopped to act on the body at a given time $t_0$, the line representing the distance with respect to time would be, after time $t_0$ , the tangent to the graph at the point $P= (t_0, t{_0}^2)$.

And the derivative at $t = t_0$ is the slope of this tangent line.

enter image description here

NOTE : a mistake in the equation of the tangent due to a confusion regarding the variable $t$ ( and not $x$) ; so the correct equation is $y = D'(t_0) ( t-t_0) + D(t_0) $ .

As to $dt$ it is not supposed to denote a point but an " infinitesimal quantity", a very small change/ difference in $t$. ( Modern Calculus , since the precise definition of a limit, does no longer make use of this idea of "infnitesimal quantity").

As you noted $\Delta y$ / $\Delta t = 2t + \Delta t$.

When $\Delta t$ goes to $0$, without ever reaching this value, the quotient $\frac {\Delta y} {\Delta t}$ goes to $\frac {dy} {dt} = 2t$ , that is " tends to" $2t$.

The time interval is never actually equal to $0$, but, nevertheless it can actually tend to $0$ and in that case , $\frac {\Delta y} {\Delta t}$ actually tends to $2t$ without being ever equal to it ( unless the force stopped acting on the object, as in the counterfactual scenario I presented above).

  • 1
    I understand everything in the post (especially the acceleration stopping instantaneously and hence proving the existence of a instantaneous velocity) but what bugs me is the concept of "tending to". What does this actually mean? As dt tends to zero doesn't this mean that it either reaches zero or a infinitesimal quantity? – Sakthi Tharan Nov 14 '21 at 10:53
  • Consider $1/x$, with $x\gt 0$ . Is there a number ( an actually existing number) to which this expression tends when $x$ gets bigger and bigger? We are forced to say that this number exists, and is $0$, though the expression $1/x$ will never actually reach this value. This existing value ( though never reached, in this example ) is the limit of the expression in question. - You may have a look at Paul's Online Math Notes and also SPIVAK , Calculus for a rigorous definition of " limit" starting from intuitive ideas. Also, a visual explanation in Thomas Calculus. – Vince Vickler Nov 15 '21 at 10:23
  • In order to realize intuitively the existence of a limit , you may try this. Compute the quotient , say , $ \frac {\Delta y} {\Delta t} = [f(4+dt) - f(t) ] / dt $ for smaller and smaller positive values of $dt$ ( starting , say, from $dt =1$ , then $dt = 9/10$ , then $8/10$ etc. ) ; you will see that the sequence of results actually goes somewhere . The arctually existing number where the sequence goes ( without reaching it) is $f'(4)$, that is the derivative of $f(x)=x^2$ at $x=4$ . – Vince Vickler Nov 15 '21 at 10:33