6
$\begingroup$

Firstly, for a finite such tower, say $n$ deep, assuming there are no divisions by $0$ to get in the way

$$\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d ...}}} = \frac{dx}{dt}\Big(\frac d{dt}\big(\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d ...}}}\big)\Big)^{-1} = \frac{\frac{dx}{dt}}{\frac d{dt}\Big(\frac{\frac{dx}{dt}}{\frac d{dt}\Big(\frac{\frac{dx}{dt}}{\frac d{dt}(...)}\Big)}\Big)}$$

The bottom of this tower is

$$ \frac{dx}{d \frac{dx}{dt}} = \frac{dx}{dt}\frac{dt}{d\frac{dx}{dt}} = \frac{x'}{x''}$$

and we can, at least in principle, work back up to the top to have the whole tower expressed as upto $n^{th}$ derivatives. I did write out what the next layers would look like but I couldn't see any nice pattern.

Ok so now my question is whether it would be in any sense meaningful to consider the infinite tower, in which case the following analysis happens:

Writing $F = \frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d ...}}}$, we have

$$F = \frac{\frac{dx}{dt}}{\frac{dF}{dt}} \implies F = \sqrt{2x + c}$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Be careful with square roots. Why not $F = -\sqrt{2x+c}$ also? $\endgroup$ – GEdgar Apr 17 '18 at 13:56
3
$\begingroup$

If $x$ and $y$ are smooth real functions "in $t$", the derivative $\frac{dx}{dy}(t_0)$ makes sense only for those $t_0$ such that $y$ is a diffeomorphism in a neighborhood of $t_0$ that is contained in the domain of $x$. (I.e., when $y$ is locally a chart for a $1$-dimensional manifold around $t_0$ on which $x$ is defined.) In this case, we have the rule(**) $$\frac{dx}{dy} = \frac{dx/dt}{dy/dt}$$ Note that a real function $y$ defined on an interval is everywhere locally a diffeomorphism iff it is smooth and strictly monotone.

I can see only one way to define the infinitely iterated derivative $$\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{\ddots}}}$$ which as you suggest is by a limit of a sequence $$(d_nx)_{n \geq 0}=t,\frac{dx}{dt},\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{dt}},\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{d\frac{dx}{dt}}},\ldots$$

There are multiple questions:

  1. For which $x$ do all $d_nx$ make sense?
  2. Does this converge? In what sense? There are many notions of convergence of functions.
  3. If it converges to $F$, is $F = \frac{dx}{dF}$? Will this expression even make sense, i.e. is $F$ smooth? strictly monotone? ... continuous?

... and partial answers:

  1. For all $d_nx$ to be well-defined on the same interval, we would need all of them to be smooth and strictly monotone. Smoothness is automatic. Examples:
    • For $x = t$, we have $d_1 = 1$ and so $d_2$ is not defined.
    • For $x = \exp t$, we have $d_1 = \exp t$, $d_2=1$, and the other $d_n$ don't make sense anymore.
    • For $x = t^2$, we have $d_1 = 2t$, $d_2 = t$, $d_3 = 2t$, $d_4 = t, \ldots$ All of them are well-defined on $\mathbb R$.
    • In general, there appears to be no nice formula for $d_n$ to test whether they are strictly monotone.
  2. As in the examples above, even when all $d_n$ are defined, the sequence need not converge.
  3. For continuous $f$ on a metric space, the limit $f(f(f( \cdots x)))$ if it exists is necessarily a fixed point of $f$. Is our $y \mapsto \frac{dx}{dy}$ continuous? For which metric? It is for example continuous for the locally uniform convergence of real analytic functions $y$, by Cauchy's integral formula.

(**) Note how writing $dx/dt$ for $x'$ is compatible with the philosophy to view a derivative as the derivative of a function with respect to another function, here the identity mapping $\operatorname{id} : \mathbb R \to \mathbb R$, denoted $t$. Compare with partial derivatives in differential geometry, or already in multivariable calculus, where a partial derivative is the derivative with respect to a projection map onto a component of the cartesian product.

That is, a 'variable' is really a function, usually the identity map.

The cancellation law is just the chain rule: we define $dx/dy(t_0)$ by $$(x \circ y^{-1})'(y(t_0))=x'(t_0)\cdot(y^{-1})'(y(t_0))$$ where $(y^{-1})'(y(t_0))=1/y'(t_0)$ again by the chain rule applied to $(y\circ y^{-1})'(y(t_0))$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ So the recursive definition is $d_n=\cfrac{\mathrm dx}{\mathrm dd_{n-1}}$, right? If so your definition $d_0=x$ doesn't quite fit the pattern; it should be $d_0=t$. $\endgroup$ – Rahul Apr 18 '18 at 4:43
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, edited. $\endgroup$ – punctured dusk Apr 18 '18 at 7:40

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.