In a problem I was working on, I found it convenient to use the notation $ dX/dA_{i \rightarrow j} $ to represent the marginal change in $X$ from redistributing a marginal amount of $A_i$ to $A_j$. Is there a name for this, and can it even be called a "derivative"? Is there a better or more conventional way to write this?

Context: $\{ A_i \}$ is a finite sequence of loan payments and $X$ could be something like the associated internal rate of return. There are many valid payment sequences that satisfy a set of constraints, each having a different $X$.

  • $\begingroup$ So basically you got yourself a function $X$ which depends on the variable $A$ if I understand correctly. That is you have $X(A)$. I think $dX/dA$ will suffice as a notation. $\endgroup$ – MathematicianByMistake Oct 12 '17 at 9:45
  • $\begingroup$ $A$ is a sequence, and there are many ways to move payments around, e.g., $A_1 \rightarrow A_4$, $A_3 \rightarrow A_2$, etc. So I need to convey $i$ and $j$ somehow $\endgroup$ – sirallen Oct 12 '17 at 9:49
  • $\begingroup$ I don't know enough about what's common in Economics/what you mean when you use the word "marginal" here, but it almost seems to me like this might be similar to a difference of "partial derivatives": If $X$ depends on all the money in the $A$s, then maybe you're looking for a quantity like $\dfrac{\partial X}{\partial A_{j}}-\dfrac{\partial X}{\partial A_{i}}$, but I'm really not certain. $\endgroup$ – Mark S. Oct 12 '17 at 10:02
  • $\begingroup$ "marginal" just means "differential". Hm, I don't think it makes sense to write $\partial X/\partial A_i$ on its own. Any increase in $A_i$ has to be offset by a decrease in $A_j$, otherwise constraints are violated. $\endgroup$ – sirallen Oct 12 '17 at 10:12
  • $\begingroup$ @sirallen If the sum of the $A_i$s is constant, then (ignoring any other constraints) that really just means the last is the sum of the others and all the others can vary essentially independently. I think your best bet would be to find an analogous situation in an economics paper/textbook and see what they do there. Alternatively, if you can formalize more precisely what you want to calculate, then someone might be able to tell you if there is a standard notation for it in math. $\endgroup$ – Mark S. Oct 12 '17 at 11:00

If I understand the question correctly, I believe that this falls under the concept of directional derivative.

In particular, if we treat $X$ as a function of the $A_i$, e.g.: $X(A_1, A_2, \ldots, A_n)$, then the quantity described as $dX/dA_{i \rightarrow j}$ could be described equivalently as $\nabla_v X$ where $v$ is some vector that is positive in the $A_j$ direction, negative in the $A_i$ direction, and zero elsewhere.


To make it even more explicit in this case, a redistribution represented by $A_{i \rightarrow j}$ corresponds to a situation where a one unit decrease in $A_i$ is matched by a $(1+r)^{j−i}$ increase in $A_j$. Then, we can define $u$ to be a vector with $-1$ in the $i$th place, $(1+r)^{j−i}$ in the $j$th place, and zero elsewhere. Define $v = u/||u||$ (i.e.: $v$ is $u$ normalized to unit length). Then, $dX / dA_{i \rightarrow j} = \nabla_v X$.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Hm, I'm not so sure. Directional derivative has the property $ \nabla_{-v} X = -\nabla_v X$, right? In my problem, I have $dA_i/dA_{i \rightarrow j} = -1 $ and $dA_i / dA_{j \rightarrow i} = (1 + r)^{i - j} $. $\endgroup$ – sirallen Oct 18 '17 at 3:10
  • $\begingroup$ I'm not sure I understand your concern. Specifically, I'm not sure how $dA_i/dA_{i \rightarrow j}$ and $dA_i/dA_{j \rightarrow i}$ are supposed to relate to $dX /dA_{i \rightarrow j}$. $\endgroup$ – mhum Oct 18 '17 at 3:22
  • $\begingroup$ Also, if we let $dX/dA_{i\rightarrow j} = \nabla_v X$, there's no need to assume that $dX/dA_{j\rightarrow i} = \nabla_{-v} X$. $\endgroup$ – mhum Oct 18 '17 at 3:28
  • $\begingroup$ (1) What do you mean? $X$ can be anything. I just gave an example in the question details. $X$ can be $A_i$. (2) Okay, I guess I misinterpreted your answer. $A_{j \rightarrow i}$ has the same direction as $-v$, different magnitude $\endgroup$ – sirallen Oct 18 '17 at 3:34
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Ok, thanks. I've extended my answer to make explicit how to get the vector $v$ in your specific case. $\endgroup$ – mhum Oct 18 '17 at 3:54

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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