Asking about a general formula for deriving an absolute function

  • Thread starter Thread starter Alkatran
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on deriving the derivative of the absolute function, specifically d/dx(abs(f(x))). The formula presented is d/dx(abs(f(x))) = f'(x) * sign(f(x)), with the understanding that the derivative does not exist at points where f(x) equals zero. The participants explore the relationship between the absolute function and its derivative, noting that for f(x) = x, the derivative is 1 for x > 0 and -1 for x < 0, while it does not exist at x = 0. The integration of the absolute function is also discussed, with examples provided to illustrate the calculations. Overall, the thread emphasizes the importance of continuity in deriving absolute functions and the implications of discontinuities on derivatives.
Alkatran
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Messages
959
Reaction score
0
Is there some general formula for deriving an absolut-ed function? Is what I;m doing wrong (a lot of derivation relies on continuous functions, doesn't it?)

IE:
d/dx(abs(sin(x)))

Here's what I got:
abs(x) = x*sign(x)
d/dx(sign(x)) = 0 (x != 0)
therefore
<br /> \frac{d}{dx}abs(f(x)) = \frac{d}{dx}f(x)*sign(f(x)) = f &#039;(x) * sign(f(x)) + 0<br />

Which, by FTC would mean that:
<br /> \int cos(x)*sign(sin(x)) \dx = abs(sin(x))<br />
'I checked this by drawing the graphs and it appears right...

Also... I saw that:
<br /> abs(sin(x)) = sin(x \mod \pi)<br />
<br /> \int x \mod c \dx = (\int_{0}^{c} x \dx)*INT(\frac{x}{c}) + \int_{0}^{x \mod c} x \dx<br />
example:
<br /> \int x \mod 1 \dx = INT(\frac{x}{c}) * .5 + x \mod 1<br />
continuing...
<br /> \int abs(sin(x)) dx = \int sin(x \mod \pi) \dx<br /> = (\int_{0}^{pi} sin(x) dx)*INT(x / \pi) - cos(x \mod \pi)<br /> = 2*INT(\frac{x}{\pi}) - cos(x \mod \pi)<br />
Far as I can tell it works...
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Consider f(x) = x. To the right of zero, it's derivative is 1, and to the left, it is -1. The derivative, you can easily show, does not exist at 0. Do this from first principles, where you know the derivative is a limit. To find this limit, calculate the right limit (as your variable, normally h, approaches zero from the right) and notice that the limit evaluates to 1. Notice that it is -1 when h approaches zero from the left. Therefore, since left limit is not equal to right limit, the limit doesn't exist, and so, by definition, the derivative doesn't exist (since the derivative is this very limit).
 
AKG said:
Consider f(x) = x. To the right of zero, it's derivative is 1, and to the left, it is -1. The derivative, you can easily show, does not exist at 0. Do this from first principles, where you know the derivative is a limit. To find this limit, calculate the right limit (as your variable, normally h, approaches zero from the right) and notice that the limit evaluates to 1. Notice that it is -1 when h approaches zero from the left. Therefore, since left limit is not equal to right limit, the limit doesn't exist, and so, by definition, the derivative doesn't exist (since the derivative is this very limit).

Sorry, I completely forgot to add x != 0

d/dx(abs(x)) = sign(x), x != 0
 
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top