General form of Newton II -- Not understanding this step in the derivation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on deriving equation 9.9 from equation 9.8 in the context of differential calculus. Participants clarify that the limit should be taken as Δx approaches zero, rather than Δy, because the relationship between the two variables does not guarantee that Δy approaching zero implies Δx does as well. The conversation emphasizes the importance of understanding the conditions under which derivatives exist and the necessity of two-sided limits for their definition.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential calculus concepts
  • Familiarity with limits and their properties
  • Knowledge of derivatives and their definitions
  • Basic grasp of functions and their inverses
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the definition of derivatives in calculus textbooks
  • Learn about the properties of limits in calculus
  • Explore the concept of differentiability and its implications
  • Investigate the relationship between functions and their inverses
USEFUL FOR

Students studying calculus, educators teaching differential calculus, and anyone interested in the foundational concepts of limits and derivatives.

member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below
Relevant Equations
Please see below
For this,
1684126577290.png

Does someone please know how do we derive equation 9.9 from 9.8? Do we take the limits as t approach's zero for both sides? Why not take limit as momentum goes to zero?

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ChiralSuperfields said:
Homework Statement: Please see below
Relevant Equations: Please see below

For this,
View attachment 326570
Does someone please know how do we derive equation 9.9 from 9.8? Do we take the limits as t approach's zero for both sides? Why not take limit as momentum goes to zero?

Many thanks!
Are you going from 9.9 to 9.8 or from 9.8 to 9.9?

9.8 to 9.9:
When you define
##y^{\prime}(x) \approx \dfrac{ \Delta y}{ \Delta x}##

which variable do we take the limit of as we pass to the exact definition?

9.9 to 9.8:
This is a definition of one way to approximate the derivative.

-Dan
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016
ChiralSuperfields said:
Homework Statement: Please see below
Relevant Equations: Please see below

Does someone please know how do we derive equation 9.9 from 9.8? Do we take the limits as t approach's zero for both sides? Why not take limit as momentum goes to zero?
It is standard differential calculus. If the momentum function is differentiable then, necessarily, as ##dt\rightarrow 0## ##d\vec p\rightarrow 0##. The converse is not necessarily true.
Since ##dt\geq 0##, the limit is taken from above.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: topsquark and member 731016
haruspex said:
Since ##dt\geq 0##, the limit is taken from above.
For a derivative to exist, the two sided limit must exist. The limit is taken from both sides. ##dt## may be negative.

There is often a prejudice toward the future. Predictions for past behavior are less useful. We want to know what will happen next. But it is just a prejudice, not something inherent in the definitions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016, DaveE and nasu
topsquark said:
Are you going from 9.9 to 9.8 or from 9.8 to 9.9?

9.8 to 9.9:
When you define
##y^{\prime}(x) \approx \dfrac{ \Delta y}{ \Delta x}##

which variable do we take the limit of as we pass to the exact definition?

9.9 to 9.8:
This is a definition of one way to approximate the derivative.

-Dan
Thank you for your replies @topsquark, @haruspex and @jbriggs444 !

@topsquark You are correct, I was curious in going from equation 9.8 to 9.9.

According to calculus textbooks we take the limit as ##\Delta x## approach's zero. However, why can't we take the limit as ##\Delta y## approach's zero because as ##\Delta y## goes to zero so dose ##\Delta x## correct?

Many thanks!
 
ChiralSuperfields said:
why can't we take the limit as ##\Delta y## approach's zero because as ##\Delta y## goes to zero so dose ##\Delta x## correct?
No. As I wrote:
haruspex said:
The converse is not necessarily true.
Consider a quartic with local minima at ##x=\pm 1, y=1##. If we start with ##(x,y)=(-1,1), \Delta x=2.1,\Delta y=0.1##, say, then as ##\Delta y\rightarrow 0##, ##\Delta x\rightarrow 2##.
The key point is that ##y=f(x)## does not necessarily have a unique inverse function ##x=f^{-1}(y)##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 731016, topsquark and hutchphd

Similar threads

Replies
44
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
5K
Replies
15
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
947
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K