MHB The Derivative in Several Variables .... Hubbard and Hubbard, Section 1.7 ....

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on understanding the concept of derivatives in several variables as linear transformations, specifically referencing Section 1.7 of Hubbard and Hubbard's book. A key point raised is the confusion over why the limit changes sign as h approaches 0 from the left and right, despite the absolute value of h remaining non-negative. It is clarified that using |h| in the denominator instead of h leads to different one-sided limits, resulting in the overall limit not existing. An example with the linear function f(x) = 2x + 3 illustrates this discrepancy, showing that the derivative's definition fails when |h| is incorrectly applied. This highlights the importance of correctly applying the definition of derivatives in calculus.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading the book: "Vector Calculus, Linear Algebra and Differential Forms" (Fourth Edition) by John H Hubbard and Barbara Burke Hubbard.

I am currently focused on Section 1.7: Derivatives in Several Variables as Linear Transformations ...

I need some help in order to understand some remarks by Hubbard and Hubbard on page 124 under the heading "The derivative in several variables ... ...

The relevant text reads as follows:
View attachment 8720
Referring to equation 1.7.10 H&H say the following:

" ... ... But this wouldn't work even in dimension $$1$$, because the limit changes sign as $$h$$ approaches $$0$$ from the left and from the right. ... ... "Could someone please explain exactly how/why the limit changes sign as $$h$$ approaches $$0$$ from the left and from the right. ... ... ?

I am puzzled because $$\mid h \mid$$ doesn't change sign and $$f( a + h ) - f ( a)$$ doesn't necessarily change sign as $$h$$ approaches $$0$$ from the left and from the right. ... ...
Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • H&H - Derivative in Several Variables .png
    H&H - Derivative in Several Variables .png
    33.8 KB · Views: 147
Physics news on Phys.org
Yes, |h| doesn't change sign but h does and so using |h| is a mistake. As the author says "this won't work even in dimension 1". Take the very simple case of f(x)= 2x+ 3 at x= 1. Since this is linear, its derivative at any x is the slope, 2. The usual definition of the derivative gives \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(1+ h)- f(1)}{h}= \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{(2(1+ h)+ 3)- 5}{h}= \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{2h}{h}= 2. But if we use "|h|" in the denominator instead of "h" that limit does not exist!

If h> 0 then \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{2h}{|h|}=\lim_{h\to 0^+}\frac{2h}{h}= 2 but if h< 0, |h|= -h so \lim_{h\to 0^-}\frac{2h}{|h|}= \lim_{h\to 0}\frac{2h}{-h}= -2. The two onesided limits are not the same so the limit itself does not exist.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K