Doctrine:Differentiation notation & terminology

From Maths
Jump to: navigation, search

Problem

Almost everyone has a different view of how to write derivatives. I have compiled these as "the best of the best" and tweaked it a little to enhance readability and consistency of the notation.

Notation & terminology

Derivative

  • [ilmath]\mathrm{d}f\vert_a[/ilmath] - the derivative of [ilmath]f[/ilmath] at [ilmath]a[/ilmath]. A linear map from the domain of [ilmath]f[/ilmath] to the co-domain of [ilmath]f[/ilmath]
    • This means [ilmath]f[/ilmath] is differentiable at [ilmath]a[/ilmath] and [ilmath]\mathrm{d}f\vert_a[/ilmath] is its derivative; not differential, that is something else.

We use the [ilmath]\mathrm{d} [/ilmath] and the [ilmath]\vert[/ilmath] as brackets. Everything between is what we're taking the derivative of.

  • Example: The chain rule - [ilmath]\mathrm{d}(g\circ f)\big\vert_{a}\eq\mathrm{d}g\big\vert_{f(a)}\circ\mathrm{d}f\big\vert_a[/ilmath][Note 1]
    • As opposed to: [ilmath]D(f\circ g)(a)=Dg(f(a))\circ Df(a)[/ilmath][1][2]

The notation employed by Munkres and Spivak in [ilmath]Df(a)[/ilmath] makes it hard to tell if it is referring to the derivative of [ilmath]f(a)[/ilmath] considered as a function (which may be constant, or [ilmath]f[/ilmath] might map [ilmath]a[/ilmath] to a function that can be differentiated itself!) and if so where. This is especially true when looking at functions of functions.



TODO: This paragraph is repetitive, fix it


It is common to want to consider [ilmath]\mathrm{d}f\vert[/ilmath], which takes points in the domain of [ilmath]f[/ilmath] to their derivatives at that point. This is a slight abuse of notation however in our notation it is not a big leap to see [ilmath]\mathrm{d}f\vert[/ilmath] as a function that takes the domain of [ilmath]f[/ilmath] to a function (from the domain of [ilmath]f[/ilmath] to the co-domain of [ilmath]f[/ilmath]). Then:

  • [ilmath]\mathrm{d}f\vert(a)[/ilmath] simply reads like another way of saying [ilmath]\mathrm{d}f\vert_a[/ilmath].

Overview

Let [ilmath](X,\Vert\cdot\Vert_X)[/ilmath] and [ilmath](Y,\Vert\cdot\Vert_Y)[/ilmath] be normed spaces and let [ilmath]f:X\rightarrow Y[/ilmath] be a function. Then:

such that:

  • [math]\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\left(\frac{\Vert f(a+h)-f(a)-\lambda(h)\Vert_Y}{\Vert h\Vert_X}\right)\eq 0[/math] - Caution:There are other expressions for this limit that may be equivalent. This has not been decided/confirmed yet

Alternate expressions:

  1. [math]\lim_{h\rightarrow 0}\left(\frac{f(a+h)-f(a)-\lambda(h)}{\Vert h\Vert_X}\right)\eq\mathbf{0} [/math] - Caution:unconfirmed

Caveats/Pending questions

  1. Is this limit equivalent to the definition of differentiable that is least constraining?
  2. Are there normed subspaces? If so must it contain [ilmath]0[/ilmath] (so [ilmath]h[/ilmath] may tend to it?) - additionally if the neighbourhood of [ilmath]a[/ilmath] is open in [ilmath]X[/ilmath] and [ilmath]X[/ilmath] is simply a topological subspace the requirements become blurred.
    • A normed subspace is almost certainly a vector subspace in its own right, so this shouldn't be a problem. However I mention this to remind myself, and as food for thought.

Notes

  1. We don't need the brackets around [ilmath]g\circ f[/ilmath] however we can agree that this is easier to read than:
    • [ilmath]\mathrm{d}g\circ f\big\vert_{a}\eq\mathrm{d}g\big\vert_{f(a)}\circ\mathrm{d}f\big\vert_a[/ilmath]
  2. Recall that [ilmath]X[/ilmath] and [ilmath]Y[/ilmath] are vector spaces

References

  1. Analysis on Manifolds - James R. Munkres
  2. Calculus on Manifolds - Spivak