Defining the rule of an arbitray function

  • Thread starter Thread starter Mr Davis 97
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    function
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the role of the free variable, typically denoted as x, in defining functions and their derivatives. It is argued that the use of x primarily serves convenience and readability, especially in functions of multiple variables. The differentiation operator can be expressed using alternative notations, such as D for derivatives, which can simplify notation in complex calculations. Additionally, while the traditional notation for limits and derivatives is useful for computations, it is considered less rigorous and somewhat outdated. Ultimately, the conversation highlights the balance between mathematical precision and practical usability in notation.
Mr Davis 97
Messages
1,461
Reaction score
44
For any ##f:\Re \rightarrow \Re ##, is the only reason that we typically define the "rule" of the function with the the free variable, ##x##, as the argument of the function, e.g., ##f(x) = x^2 + 1##, because it's simply easier than having to do something like ##f(~) = (~)^2 + 1##? That is, does the use of ##x## not really serve a purpose when defining the function besides that of convenience and readability?

Also, as an extension to this question, if it is the case that the free variable ##x## is just there for convenience, then how would we right the differentiation operator ##\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}##? Would you write it as ##\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} (~)}## or something? Also, would one even be able to define the derivative ##\displaystyle\lim_{\Delta x\rightarrow 0}\frac{f(x + \Delta x ) - f(x)}{\Delta x}## without the use of the free variable ##x##?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Mr Davis 97 said:
For any ##f:\Re \rightarrow \Re ##, is the only reason that we typically define the "rule" of the function with the the free variable, ##x##, as the argument of the function, e.g., ##f(x) = x^2 + 1##, because it's simply easier than having to do something like ##f(~) = (~)^2 + 1##? That is, does the use of ##x## not really serve a purpose when defining the function besides that of convenience and readability?
Pretty much, yes. The convenience and readability become even more important if you consider functions of multiple variables. E.g. ##f(x,y,z) = x^2 y z^3## vs. something like ##f((~), [~], \{~\}) = (~)^2[~]\{~\}^3##.
Also, as an extension to this question, if it is the case that the free variable ##x## is just there for convenience, then how would we right the differentiation operator ##\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} x}##? Would you write it as ##\frac{\mathrm{d} }{\mathrm{d} (~)}## or something?
You could use the notation ##D##, e..g ##Df## is the derivative of ##f##. If ##f## is a function of ##n## variables, then ##D_1, D_2, \ldots D_n## are standard symbols for the partial derivative operators. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_operator
Also, would one even be able to define the derivative ##\displaystyle\lim_{\Delta x\rightarrow 0}\frac{f(x + \Delta x ) - f(x)}{\Delta x}## without the use of the free variable ##x##?
$$f'((~)) = \lim_{[~]\rightarrow 0}\frac{f((~) + [~] ) - f((~))}{[~]}$$
 
  • Like
Likes Mr Davis 97
It is not what you have asked, but a symbol for a variable in the "operator" ##\frac{d}{dx}## is just useful for doing long calculations in a draft at most. It is not rigorous, it is not used in the definition and in fact is long time dead.

As a paradox, the same type of variable symbol is largely used in the definition of the limit of a function and is an ancient mistake. A much better notation would be ##\displaystyle \lim_{a} f## for the limit of a function ##f## at an accumulation point ##a## of the domain of ##f##. Again, the old notation is great for doing long calculations in a draft.

Now, the derivative of a function ##f : A \to \mathbb{R}## at a point ##a \in A \subset \mathbb{R}## is defined like this: consider the Newton's quocient function of ##f## at the point ##a## given by ##\displaystyle Qf_a (t) = \frac{f(a+t) - f(a)}{t}##, with an appropriate domain. Then the derivative of ##f## at the point ##a## is just ##\displaystyle \lim_{0} Qf_a##, if it exists. :-)
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top