A community for students.
Here's the question you clicked on:
 0 viewing
Empty
 one year ago
Is it possible to give the derivative of x at x=0 a value?
Empty
 one year ago
Is it possible to give the derivative of x at x=0 a value?

This Question is Closed

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0no, the derivative is undefined at x = 0

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0the derivative as x approaches zero from the right is 1 , the left hand slope is 1

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yes the algorithm doesn't define a derivative there, but look at this graph: https://www.desmos.com/calculator/cwbnewkrud We can see that in order to turn through that single point the derivative there looks like it should, if it did have a value from the algorithm, take on a value between 1 and 1. Not only that, it's at a local min, which normally means that the derivative should be zero there, which also lies between 1 and 1. Just because it doesn't approach it doesn't mean we can't define the derivative to be 0 there since it seems to fit. It seems more useful than leaving it undefined and it makes sense to do so I think.

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0This one: \[f'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{f(x+h)f(x)}{h}\]

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0for h>0 : (f(0 + h )  f(0)) / h = f(h)/h = h / h = 1 , and lim 1 = 1 for h <0 (f(0 + h )  f(0)) / h = f(h)/h = h / h = 1, and lim 1 = 1

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Right, I'm not really debating that the algorithm doesn't define anything there, but I did give two good reasons why we should expand the concept to say the derivative should be 0 at x=0.

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0that limit does not exist at x = 0 , so the derivative is undefined. $$ \large f'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0^{+}} \frac{f(x+h)f(x)}{h}= \lim_{h \to 0^{}} \frac{f(x+h)f(x)}{h} $$

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0the derivative must equal the right hand limit and the left hand limit if it is to exist

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I don't think you're really paying attention to what I'm saying.

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0We have an accepted definition of derivative. I don't know why you want to violate it.

freckles
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Your picture shows there isn't a unique tangent line at x=0.

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yeah it shows that at that point the slope could possibly be any value in a range from 1 to 1. But the slope is definitely not 3 or 7 there. Imagine a particle flying along that path, it will be the tangent vector. Right when it gets to x=0 it will have to turn through an angle before it can continue flying straight. I'm saying that the regular derivative definition seems like it might be too simple or naive. What if we need something better? It seems to have a range there. My other argument is that this is a local min, and so commonly we find the derivative is 0 at a local min and max, so why not take this geometric stance in addition to or separately to expand it? At the very least, what makes everyone so sure that limit definition is the one and only true and final derivative definition that can never be improved upon? What's stopping us from potentially revising and generalizing it perhaps? I don't have the answer to this question but it feels to me like you all have ruled this possibility out  why?

freckles
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0local max/min can occur when f'=0 or when f' dne

freckles
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0because of the definitions already here we can make a new definition maybe

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0You can show that f'(0) cannot be defined. Assume f'(0) exists \[ \Large \text{Definition} \\ \large{ f'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0^{+}} \frac{f(x+h)f(x)}{h}= \lim_{h \to 0^{}} \frac{f(x+h)f(x)}{h} \\~\\ f' (0) = \lim_{h \to 0^{+}} \frac{f(0+h)f(0)}{h} = 1 \\ f' (0) = \lim_{h \to 0^{+}} \frac{f(0+h)f(0)}{h} = 1 \\ \therefore \\ 1 = 1 } \]

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Yeah, please don't argue this same thing again @jayzdd I understand completely what you're saying, it's just not addressing my issue.

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0You could make an alternate definition of derivative, but we have a lot of theorems that depend on the limit definition of derivative. So you would have to start from scratch in light of this new derivative. In topology there is an other way to define derivative, so this is not the last word on derivative.

freckles
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0g star of a function g: \[g^{*}(x)=g'(x) \text{ if } g'(x) \text{ exist } \\ g^{*}(x)=0 \text{ if } g'(x) \text{ doesn't exist } \] so g(x)=x g star=x if x>0 and x if x<0 and 0 if x=0 dw:1433873776520:dw now why did we need this?

freckles
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0and I should say if g'(x) doesn't approach one of the infinities

freckles
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0g star=1 if x>0 and 1 if x<0 and 0 if x=0 *

freckles
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0This might sound better: \[\text{ Assume } g \text{ is continuous } \\ g^*(x)= \left\{ \begin{matrix}g'(x) \text{ if } g'(x) \text{ exist } \\ 0 \text{ if } g'_{_{}}(x)=L \text{ and } g'_{_{+}}(x)=M, L \neq M \end{matrix} \right\} \] where M and L are real numbers and g'_ is left derivative and g'+ is right derivative

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I am thinking about looking at f(x) = x^(2/3). If we want to define the derivative at x =0, now you can pick any slope between negative infinity and positive infinity

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0I don't think its prudent to force a non smooth function to have a derivative at all points. Because when we say that a function has a well defined derivative at all points in its domain, then we expect it to be smooth all points in its domain, not have a kink as in y=x. For example y = x^2 has a derivative at all points. There are many theorems that would have to change if you deviated from this.

anonymous
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0@Michele_Laino Would you like to comment on this problem?

Empty
 one year ago
Best ResponseYou've already chosen the best response.0Another argument is if we consider the Fourier Series of the sgn function it converges to 0 at x=0. So there is a more "natural" way in which this happens.
Ask your own question
Sign UpFind more explanations on OpenStudy
Your question is ready. Sign up for free to start getting answers.
spraguer
(Moderator)
5
→ View Detailed Profile
is replying to Can someone tell me what button the professor is hitting...
23
 Teamwork 19 Teammate
 Problem Solving 19 Hero
 Engagement 19 Mad Hatter
 You have blocked this person.
 ✔ You're a fan Checking fan status...
Thanks for being so helpful in mathematics. If you are getting quality help, make sure you spread the word about OpenStudy.