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.

This may be braindead, but I'm trying!

If I have a function $f$ and that function is not defined at some x, then asking for the derivative of the function at $x$ makes no sense since there is no $f(x)$ at $x$.

But if I want to find a gradient for that function as close as possible to x, then how does that work? Isn't that the same as the derivative at x? It's like, I can do the same calculation but I have to disregard the result because I'm asking for something that doesn't exist.

For example, if $f(x)=\frac{1}{x−2}$, then $f(x)$ is not defined at $x=2$. So I can't find the derivative at that point since it doesn't exist, But the limit is 2. But the limit is the derivative, and the derivative doesn't exist! I'm confused.

I felt like I understood this but I woke up this morning with no idea. Last week I was happily finding the volume of cylindrical wedges, now I can't understand limits O_O

Please set me straight.

EDIT: I think my problem is the way I'm thinking about limits. It seems that there are two limits and I'm confusing them. The limit that $f(x)$ approaches and the limit that $x+h$ approaches. In the above example where $f(x)=\frac{1}{x-2}$, $2+h$ approaches $2$ and $f'(x)$ is undefined since the numerator contains a division by zero.
Is that my answer?

2nd EDIT: This is what I'm really asking: How do I find $lim_{x\to a}f'(x)$?

share|improve this question
2  
A typo: $f$ is not defined at $f(x)$? you meant $x$ instead of $f(x)$, most probably. –  Nikhil Bellarykar Jan 6 '12 at 18:31
    
No I meant $f(x)$. For example, if $f(x) = \frac{1}{x-2}$, then $f(x)$ is not defined at $x=2$. So I can't find the derivative at that point since it doesn't exist, but....hmm, I may have just answered my own question. So the limit is 2. But the limit is the derivative, and the derivative doesn't exist! I'm confused. –  Korgan Rivera Jan 6 '12 at 18:38
    
Again the same confusion! Read your question again and you will see it. Anyways, if $f(x)$ is not defined at say $x=a$, then $f'(a)$ is also not defined. –  Nikhil Bellarykar Jan 6 '12 at 18:44
    
Yeah you're right, I meant to say $f$ is not defined at $x$. :) –  Korgan Rivera Jan 6 '12 at 18:50
    
@Nikhil: Yup, but I think he's interested in the limiting values at "undefined points". –  William Jan 6 '12 at 18:52

6 Answers 6

Note: $\delta q$ is just one variable, not two. (Just incase that is confusing.)

Hey there, these are all great answers. But I'd like to be a bit more precise about what's confusing you, if I can:

If I have a function f and that function is not defined at some x, then asking for the derivative of the function at x makes no sense since there is no f(x) at x.

I think you're way too used to the variables and not seeing the entire point: When we take a derivative of a function (let's call it $z(q)$), we're taking a limit that eventually simplifies:

$ \frac{d}{dq} z(q)=\lim_{\delta q \to 0} \frac{z(q+\delta q)-z(q)}{\delta q} $

Now, I'm sure you're aware of that and all, but it seems you've confused your terms. You have used the term "$x$" in two different ways without realizing it. Think about your statement rewritten:

If I have a function $z(q)$ and that function is not defined at some point, then asking for the derivative of the function at that point makes no sense since there is no $z(q)$ at that point.

Notice how I didn't confuse the variable of the function with the point? Now, even that statement isn't entirely accurate. The question becomes: What are you precisely thinking? Consider: We have $z(q)$ and, let's presume, its derivative: $z'(q)$. Now, are you saying: Why should we consider $z'(x)$ (a specific value) when $z'(q)$ (a specific function) is discontinuous at $x$ (a specific point)? That makes perfect sense. Do you see the difference and how this clarifies precisely what you're saying and gets rid of the confusion? I think you understand this matter really well, you've just confused yourself by using the same thing to denote very different things.

I can't find the derivative at that point since it doesn't exist, But the limit is 2. But the limit is the derivative, and the derivative doesn't exist! I'm confused.

You've got a precise example of what I'm saying. You're confusing the limit of the derivative at the point with the limit of the function. Let me illustrate: Your derivative of $z$ is a specific limit. But it is NOT the same limit that you take when you take the limit of $z'$ at a point that $z'$ is undefined at. More annoyingly stated: $z'(q)=\lim_{\delta q \to 0}\frac{z(q+\delta q)-z(q)}{\delta q}$ whereas (the second) is $\lim_{q \to y}z'(q)=\lim_{q \to y}\lim_{\delta q \to 0}\frac{z(q+\delta q)-z(q)}{\delta q}$ (where $y$ is your undefined point).

I'm sorry if anything I've said here is useless or redundant, I just hope this helps. This is my first answer on math, so if I'm made any horrendous faux pas, I'm sorry.

share|improve this answer

Let's take a real-valued function defined for $x>0$, let's assume that $f$ is differentiable for $x>0$, and finally let's assume that $\lim_{x\to0+}f'(x)=a$. I claim that $f$ can be continuously extended to $x=0$, that $f$ is differentiable at $x=0$ and that $f'(0)=a$.

There is a $\delta_0>0$ with $|f'(x)|\leq M:=|a|+1$ for all $x\in]0,\delta_0[\ .$ Given an $\epsilon>0$ put $\delta:=\min\{\delta_0,\epsilon/M\}>0$. Then by the MVT of differential calculus we have $$|f(x)-f(y)|\leq\epsilon$$ for all $x$, $y$ with $0<x<y<\delta$. By Cauchy's theorem it follows that the limit $\lim_{x\to0+} f(x)=:f(0)$ exists, and now $f$ is continuous at $0$.

Using the MVT again (note that for the MVT the function only has to be continuous at the endpoints) we can say that for any $x>0$ there is a $\xi\in\ ]0, x[\ $ such that $${f(x)-f(0)\over x-0}=f'(\xi)\ ,$$ and by assumption on $f'$ it follows that $f'(0)=a$.

share|improve this answer

This question is too general, but let me try: compute the quantity in question first (presumably it is computable on, say, some open set for which the singularity in question is a boundary point), and then take the limit of the quantity as the parameter approaches singularity. For example, consider the function $f(x) = 2x^2 - 1$ if $x > 2$. We aren't defining $f(x)$ for any other values of $x$. The derivative of $f$ is $2x$ where it is defined, and $\lim_{x\rightarrow 2^+}f'(x) = 4$.

Of course, in the bigger picture, the bigger question is whether a given map can be extended to a larger domain (in some meaningful way) than the one it was defined on originally.

share|improve this answer

But the derivative is also the gradient of the tangent at $x$.

Derivative of $f(x)$ at $a$ i.e. $f'(a)$ gives the slope of tangent touching the curve $f(x)$ at $x=a$. This means that if $f(a)$ is not defined, the slope of tangent touching $f(x)$ at $x=a$ is also not defined, i.e. $f'(a)$ is not defined.

But if I want to find a gradient for that function as close as possible to x, then how does that work? Isn't that the same as the derivative at x? It's like, I can do the same calculation but I have to disregard the result because I'm asking for something that doesn't exist.

yes, derivative at $x=a$ is the gradient of $f(x)$ at $x=a$.

If you want the gradient of $f(x)$ as close as possible to $a$, that means you are talking about the limit

$\displaystyle\lim_{x\to a}f'(x)$ i.e.

$\displaystyle\lim_{x\to a}\Big(\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}\Big)\cdots(1)$

Now, we know that $\displaystyle f(x)=\frac{x^2-9}{x-3}$ is not defined at $x=3$, but that $\displaystyle\lim_{x\to 3}f(x)$ exists. It happens because $(x-3)\not=0$ as $x\to 3$and thus by cancellation, we have $f(x)=x+3$.

Now, if such a provision exists in our $f'(a)$, we can talk about the existence of limit in $(1)$. Otherwise it does not exist.

The derivative is the limit. But the derivative is also the gradient of the tangent at $x$. I can see how a limit can exist if $f(x)$ doesn't exist, but I can't see how a gradient can exist when $f(x)$ doesn't.

As I have said above, a limit say $\lim_{x\to a}f(x)$ exists even if $f(a)$ does not exist $\textbf{only in case f(x) has some 'uncomfortable at x=a but cancellable otherwise' part that enables taking of limit}.$

Other than such a case, the answer to your question would be:

If $f(a)$ is not defined, $f'(a)$ and the gradient of $f(x)$ at $x=a$ is not defined.

share|improve this answer
    
$\lim_{x\to a}f'(x)$ This sums up exactly what I wanted to ask! I'll update my question, and thanks for your answer. –  Korgan Rivera Jan 6 '12 at 19:19
    
click on the tick sign near d answer if you found it useful :) –  Nikhil Bellarykar Jan 6 '12 at 19:40

Well if $f(x)$ is undefined then you certainly can't define $f'(x)$ using the conventional definition. However, it may be possible to make sense of a derivative at $x$ when $f(x)$ is undefined by considering

$$\lim_{k \to 0} \lim_{h \to 0} \left( \frac{f(x+k) - f(x+k+h)}{h} \right) = \lim_{k \to 0} f'(x+k)$$

But I'm not sure how much sense you will be able to make of this for practical purposes.

share|improve this answer
    
The limit above is a bit puzzling to me. In which order are you taking the limit? It isn't completely clear to me that the limit even exists, or that the limits $\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}$ and $\lim_{k\rightarrow 0}$ commute. Of course, if $f(x)$ is defined and differentiable at $x$, then there is no problem. But the OP is interested precisely in the case where $f'(x)$ might not exist (or $f(x)$ is not even defined). –  William Jan 6 '12 at 18:45
    
@WNY: Good point, thanks. I hadn't put enough thought into defining the limit. I'll change it to something that makes more sense. –  Clive Newstead Jan 6 '12 at 19:21

If the function $f$ was defined at a neighborhood of $a$ and also was continuous at the point $a$, then:

If $\lim\limits_{x\to a} f'(x)$ exists, then it is the value of $f'$ at $a$.

That is a case where the derivate at the point is the value of the limit. I thought you wanted to do something like this, but is not the case .

share|improve this answer
    
Please don't yell; all caps is considered yelling. In this site, you can use italics for emphasis (surround the text with * or with _), or boldface (surround the text with **). Thank you. –  Arturo Magidin Jan 7 '12 at 17:16
    
I used letters without any goal only to explain what Ithought, –  alpha.Debi Jan 7 '12 at 18:36
    
That's fine; my point is only that when people see capital letters, it's intepreted as yelling or shouting. If you want to mimic emphasis, you should use italics or boldface, instead. –  Arturo Magidin Jan 7 '12 at 18:43

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.