Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I have been trying to analyse the meaning of higher order derivatives and their geometrical significance.

Given a function $f(x)$ what are the unique geometric interpretation of its higher orders?

  • $f'(x)$ - slope (rate of change of x w.r.t y)
  • $f''(x)$ - convexity / concavity of $f(x)$ based on $sign(f''(x))$
  • $f'''(x)$ - increasing / decreasing slope of $f'(x)$
  • $f''''(x)$ - ??
  • ...
  • $f^n(x)$ - ??

I apologize if this question is rudimentary.

share|improve this question
2  
see math.stackexchange.com/questions/14841/… regarding the third derivative. Also, please remove the tags 'multivariable-calculus' and 'derived-functors'. –  Ittay Weiss Jan 9 '13 at 22:14

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

There are many ways to answer this. I think my favorite is this:

The Taylor expansion of a a function $f$ at $a$ is:

$$ f(x) = f(a) + f^\prime (a)(x-a) + \frac{f^{\prime\prime}(a)}{2}(x-a)^2 + ... +\frac{f^{(n)}(a)}{n!}(x-a)^n+...$$

What you can do with this is take a function $f$ around some point $a$, then eliminate the information you get from the first $n$ derivatives by subtracting the first $n$ terms of the Taylor expansion, and then the lowest nonzero polynomial approximation you can get is, in a sense, the information that the $(n+1)$th derivative holds.

Let's try to match what you already know to this approach:

  • $f(a)$ is the most important information when trying to figure our how $f$ behaves around $a$ - it tells you where it's all located, and it's in fact the approximation of $f$ with a polynomial of degree $0$.
  • $f^\prime(a)$ is the result of eliminating all information given by $f(a)$ (by subtracting it), and then trying to polynomially approximate the function. So in fact $f^\prime(x)$ is answering the question "What straight line does $f$ most look like around $a$?". If this line is ascending you can say that $f$ is ascending, you can say that the slope of the line can be very naturally thought of as the slope of $f$ at $a$, and so on.
  • $f^{\prime\prime}(a)$. Once you get bored comparing $f$ to a straight line, you can eliminate this part too by subtracting $f^\prime(a) (x-a)$ and then the next lowest degree nontrivial polynomial approximation you can get is of degree $2$ - a parabola, and it's coefficient is (proportional to) $f^{\prime\prime}(a)$. And again, if $f^{\prime\prime}(x)>0$, the parabola is "smiling" and the function can be said to be concave, and if $f^{\prime\prime}(x)<0$, the parabola is "frowning" and $f$ can be said to be convex, the higher the coefficient the stronger the concavity / convexity, etc.
  • $f^{\prime\prime\prime}(a)$. This is where it gets less intuitive, because you can subtract the previous approximation, but now you have two problems: First, you already have a lot of information on the function, so how this changes what you know can be harder to visualize. Second, It's not immediately intuitive what it means to be similar to a certain monomial of degree $3$. It can, however, be a little clearer when $f^{\prime\prime}(a)=0$. In this case, $f$ is neither concave nor convex at $a$, but if the third derivative is positive, then it should be similar to $x^3$, meaning it's more convex on the left and more concave on the right, and if $f^{\prime\prime\prime}(a)<0$, then it should be similar to $-x^3$, that is, concave on the left and convex on the right. This is generally true, as the third derivative can be looked at as a measure of "how much more concave / convex the function gets passing around $a$", but this can be a little hard to visualize.
  • $f^{(n)}(a)$. In the same manner as before, this can be thought of as a measure of what $n$-degree monomial is $f$ most similar to, discarding all information from lower degree polynomial approximations. I think this is hard for us to visualize as a quality for the same reason that it's hard to tell what is the true "qualitative" difference between $x^2$ and $x^4$, maybe because our intuition is naturally built to make do with good approximations, and the value, slope and concavity / convexity of a function at a point already describe a very good approximation for most "everyday" cases.

It can also sometimes be helpful to look at the physical interpretation of the derivatives of motion: $f(x)$ is where you are, $f^\prime(x)$ is your velocity, $f^{\prime\prime}(x)$ is your acceleration, $f^{\prime\prime\prime}(x)$ is the rate in which your acceleration changes (for example, if you're in a car and you're gradually stepping on the gas), etc.

I think this is a really good question, because understanding concepts like this can give very powerful intuition, and I can't say I have any geometric intuition of any higher derivatives, but the coefficients of the Taylor series prevent this from keeping me up at night.

share|improve this answer
    
this is a brilliant answer. I really appreciate the effort you took to reply to the post. Indeed the Taylor series does aid in developing a strong intuition of higher degrees. I believe training our mind to interpret higher degrees is a fruitful endeavour in understanding the fabric of nature. –  Jugesh Sundram Jan 19 '13 at 3:28

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.