0 Up votes0 Down votes

857 views6 pagesThis mathematical work represents the author's analysis, thoughts, conclusions concerning the modern calculus.

Jan 22, 2019

© © All Rights Reserved

This mathematical work represents the author's analysis, thoughts, conclusions concerning the modern calculus.

© All Rights Reserved

857 views

This mathematical work represents the author's analysis, thoughts, conclusions concerning the modern calculus.

© All Rights Reserved

You are on page 1of 6

4∗𝑥

Let’s consider a function 𝑝(𝑥) = 𝑥 . It is clear that the function is not defined at 𝑥 = 0 (there is not y-value on its graph), in

other words, a value (output) of the function does not exist at 𝑥 = 0 . Now, take a limit of 𝑝(𝑥) as 𝑥 goes to zero:

4∗𝑥

lim 𝑝(𝑥) = lim = lim 4 = 4

𝑥→0 𝑥→0 𝑥 𝑥→0

The algebraic trick (operation) is used to find a limit of 𝑝(𝑥) as 𝑥 goes to zero. This limit is equal to four; however, it does not

mean that an output of the function 𝑝(𝑥) exists at 𝑥 = 0. Therefore, this limit cannot be used to define a value (output) of the

function 𝑝(𝑥) at 𝑥 = 0, because 𝑝(𝑥) does not have any output at 𝑥 = 0.

A slope of some original function is derived by the definition of the derivative (limit) which has the following form if 𝑔(𝑥) is the

original function and ℎ is a distance between two x-values of 𝑔(𝑥) :

𝑔(𝑥) = 𝑔′ (𝑥) = lim = lim

𝑑𝑥 ℎ→0 ((𝑥 + ℎ) − 𝑥) ℎ→0 ℎ

An algebraic form of a slope of the original function is a quotient in which the numerator is a difference between two y-values

of the original function and the denominator is a difference between two x-values of the original function. This quotient can be

expressed as a function of ℎ for every x-value. Let’s assume 𝑔(𝑥) = 𝑥 2 , then its derivative is:

′ (𝑥)

(𝑥 + ℎ)2 − 𝑥 2 (𝑥 2 + 2 ∗ 𝑥 ∗ ℎ + ℎ2 ) − 𝑥 2

𝑔 = lim = lim

ℎ→0 ℎ ℎ→0 ℎ

Hence, the quotient in this limit is an algebraic form defining a value of the slope of the original function at any value of 𝑥.

Therefore, this quotient can be taken as a function of ℎ at, say, 𝑥 = 1 :

(12 + 2 ∗ 1 ∗ ℎ + ℎ) − 12 (1 + 2 ∗ ℎ + ℎ2 ) − 1 2 ∗ ℎ + ℎ2

= =

ℎ ℎ ℎ

The value (output) of this function of ℎ at ℎ = 0 is undefined; therefore, the value (output) does not exist:

2 ∗ 0 + 02 0

= = 𝑢𝑛𝑑𝑒𝑓𝑖𝑛𝑒𝑑 (𝑛𝑜𝑡 𝑦 − 𝑣𝑎𝑙𝑢𝑒 𝑜𝑛 𝑡ℎ𝑒 𝑔𝑟𝑎𝑝ℎ)

0 0

This quotient (function of ℎ ) defines a value of the slope of the original function 𝑔(𝑥) at 𝑥 = 1. As seen, the slope of 𝑔(𝑥) at

𝑥 = 1 is not defined if ℎ = 0, in other words, the slope does not exist at 𝑥 = 1 if ℎ = 0 ! However, the limit of the function of ℎ

as ℎ goes to zero can be found by using the algebraic trick (operation):

2 ∗ ℎ + ℎ2 ℎ ∗ (2 + ℎ) 1 ∗ (2 + ℎ)

lim = lim = lim = lim (2 + ℎ) = 2

ℎ→0 ℎ ℎ→0 ℎ ℎ→0 1 ℎ→0

Note: ℎ is replaced with zero, but not as small as needed (infinitesimal) number

But this limit does not define a value (output) of the function of ℎ at ℎ = 0; therefore, this limit does not define the slope of the

original function 𝑔(𝑥) at 𝑥 = 1, but define the slope of its “tangent” line. I think that some people mix the formulas for limits

with the calculations defining values of limits. The formulas contain an element (ℎ → 0 or other) showing that some variable (ℎ

or other) goes to zero, some number or infinity, but such a variable is replaced with zero, some number or infinity in the

calculations to define values of limits.

Conclusion:

Whether the limit in the definition of the derivative can define a value of any slope of any original function (except a value of its

“tangent” line slope) if the quotient, expressing the slope of the original function in this limit, does not have any value at ℎ = 0?

Now, let’s go even deeper. As far as I know, the general rule in Calculus is that derivatives (two-sided limits) cannot be taken

at endpoints if such endpoints are last possible points of a function or closed intervals (in case of discontinuity); however, a

basement of such impossibility looks unsatisfying for the following reason. A derivative of some original function expresses a

value of such an original function slope at some point, but this value of the original function slope does not depend on ℎ as it

was proved on the previous page. As you can see, the original function derivatives are defined at ℎ = 0 by using the algebraic

trick (truncation of ℎ in the denominator and numerator); therefore, the derivative is absolutely independent of ℎ.

As a result of ℎ = 0, all values of derivatives of original functions are outside of the tangents induced by the quotients in the

definition of the derivative (limit) for all functions! Hence, it seems to be somehow misleading to use a term “tangent” for “the

slope of the function tangent line” because the values of the slopes of the function tangent lines are outside of the quotients

which express tangents in the definition of the derivative (limit) for all functions. Seemingly, “tangent” was recklessly left from

the initial definition of the derivative when, if I do not mistake, ℎ went to zero but was not equal to zero, i.e. ℎ expressed

infinitesimal values. In case of ℎ as an infinitesimal, it was understandable to apply “tangent” for “the slope of the function

tangent line”.

In terms of the tangents in the definitions of the derivative (limits), it is clear that these tangents have the geometrical and

algebraic basements. The algebraic basement consists of a quotient, and the geometrical one consists of an appropriate angle

of a triangle. Concerning the tangents in the definitions of the derivative (limits), these tangents have the algebraic basement

as the quotients in these limits. Therefore, if the derivative is defined by the use of the algebraic trick as ℎ = 0, then the

derivative kind of loses its geometrical basement because the quotient does not have any value at ℎ = 0, but saves its algebraic

basement. In this way, the current derivatives are clearly algebraic constructions which depend only on the structure of the

original function formulas used for the quotients in the definitions of the derivative (limits). Therefore, the derivatives (two-

sided limits) can be taken at endpoints of the original functions and also at endpoints of closed intervals!

Summary:

As it is proved above, it appears that the derivatives, i.e. the limits in the definitions of the derivative, express non-existing

rates because existing rates are always defined by quotients! For example, it is evident that one cannot get any density (physical

parameter) by dividing zero kilograms of some matter by zero cubic meters of volume which is true for any other analogous

example. However, one can algebraically calculate some value for density by using the algebraic tricks even if one uses zero

kilogram for mass and zero cubic meters for volume (just need formula(s) of original function(s)). Some value for density in this

case is just an algebraic result which does not express any real density value but may express a slope of “tangent” line of some

original function. This example nicely illustrates that values of slope of “tangent” lines of original functions are not existing (real)

rates. However, slopes of “tangent” lines of original functions can be good approximations for existing (real) rates.

To sum up, the derivatives, i.e. slopes of original functions “tangent” lines, should be separated from existing rates (real physical

parameters)! The next question which the author of this mathematical work tries to answer is:

“Whether the derivatives as non-existing rates can lead to meaningful errors in calculations with physical parameters (mass,

density, speed, acceleration etc.) in integrals?”

Defining errors in Integrals

As it is shown in the foundation, the derivatives are proved to express non-existing rates, including physical parameters defined

by quotients, but are good approximations of existing rates, including appropriate physical parameters. So if 𝑔(𝑥) = 𝑥 2 is the

original function, then its derivative (non-existing rate) at 𝑥 = 1 is 2, whereas the existing rate should be expressed as 2 + ℎ

where ℎ is some value (number) but not zero. Hence, the derivative of the original function 𝑔(𝑥) = 𝑥 2 expressing existing rates

must be 2 ∗ 𝑥 + ℎ.

In according to Fundamental Theorem of Calculus1:

𝐹(𝑥) = ∫ 𝑓(𝑥) 𝑑𝑥

If 𝐹(𝑥) is an original function and 𝑓(𝑥) is its derivative, then the definition of the derivative (limit)2 is:

𝐹 ′ (𝑥) = 𝑓(𝑥) = lim = lim

ℎ→0 ℎ ℎ→0 (𝑥 + ℎ) − 𝑥

As you understand, ℎ in this definition is replaced with zero at the end of the limit calculations (not an infinitesimal value as it

was a long time ago as the author was told). The derivative produced by this definition expresses non-existing rates as it is

proved in the foundation of this work. Please remember these points across all this work.

Now, let’s consider the definite integral from a to b as the limit of Riemann’s sum3 that may be expressed by the next formula:

𝑏 𝑛 𝑛

𝑏−𝑎

𝐹(𝑏) − 𝐹(𝑎) = ∫ 𝑓(𝑥) 𝑑𝑥 = lim ∑ 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) ∗ ∆𝑥 = lim ∑ 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) ∗

𝑛→∞ 𝑛→∞ 𝑛

𝑎 𝑖=1 𝑖=1

𝑏−𝑎

where ∆𝑥 = 𝑛

is equal to zero, so dividing some number by infinity results in zero

𝑛

𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎

lim ∑ 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) ∗ = 𝑓(𝑥1 ) ∗ + 𝑓(𝑥2 ) ∗ + ⋯ + 𝑓(𝑥𝑛 ) ∗

𝑛→∞ 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛

𝑖=1

𝑏−𝑎

You can see that every term of Riemann’s sum is multiplied by 𝑛 that is equal to zero if 𝑛 is infinity; therefore, 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) in every

term is multiplied by zero. Hence, every term is equal to zero. Consequently, all Riemann’s sum terms add up to zero! Also, ∆𝑥

in the limit of Riemann’s sum is a differential 𝑑𝑥 in the definite integral as it can be seen:

𝑏−𝑎

= ∆𝑥 = 𝑑𝑥 = ℎ = 0

𝑛

The last equality shows that the differentials in the definite integral are equal to zero. Therefore, I conclude 𝑑𝑥 and ∆𝑥 as well

as ∆𝑦, ∆𝑧 in the limit of Riemann’s sum play a role of an algebraic trick because multiplying by zero results in zero or

undetermined form that does not make any physical sense for calculating physical parameters in my opinion. For example,

calculating mass by using a density of a material and an integral defining a volume does not make sense in my opinion because

every term of Riemann’s sum in the limit expresses zero volume if ∆𝑉 is zero:

𝑛

𝑛→∞

𝑖=1

1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_theorem_of_calculus

2

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative

3

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sum

If a density and an original formula 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 , 𝑦𝑖 , 𝑧𝑖 ) are given, one could calculate a mass of the figure by adding the terms of

Riemann’s sum. However, both ∆𝑥, ∆𝑦, ∆𝑧 and 𝑑𝑥 are equal to zero that makes every term zero! Here is a diagram of some 3D

figure:

Series 1

20

10

0

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

Series 1

Now, turn to 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) as an element of Riemann’s sum term. In the limit (definite integral) of Riemann’s sum, 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) is a function

which is a derivative of some original function 𝐹(𝑥). The original function 𝐹(𝑥) can be a function expressing distance, speed,

acceleration, density or other physical parameters. Assume that 𝐹(𝑡) expresses distance with respect to time, then 𝑓(𝑡𝑖 )

expresses its derivative, i.e. speed with respect to time. It means that 𝑓(𝑡𝑖 ) expresses some value of speed for every t-value if

such a value can be determined.

Based on the foundation of this work, 𝑓(𝑡𝑖 ) expresses non-existing rates, but speed is a rate of change of the distance function

𝐹(𝑡) and a parameter used in physics. Therefore, 𝑓(𝑡𝑖 ) expresses non-existing speed for every t-value of the original function

𝐹(𝑡); however, 𝑓(𝑡𝑖 ) gives good approximations of real speed for every t-value of 𝐹(𝑡).

Next, figure out which errors can be caused by non-existing values (approximations) of speed used in the definite integrals,

that is, in the limits of Riemann’s sum. At first, consider the definition of the derivative (limit) applied to the original function

𝐹(𝑡) with ℎ and ∆𝑡 each of which, as it is proved above, is equal to zero. Assume that 𝐹(𝑡) = 𝑡 2 , then its derivative 𝑓(𝑡) is:

(𝑡 + ℎ)2 − 𝑡 2

𝐹 ′ (𝑡) = 𝑓(𝑡) = lim = lim (2 ∗ 𝑡 + ℎ) = 2 ∗ 𝑡

ℎ→0 ℎ ℎ→0

Now, replace 𝑓(𝑥𝑖 ) with 2 ∗ 𝑡 in the limit (definite integral) of Riemann’s sum:

𝑏 𝑛

2 2

𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎

𝐹(𝑏) − 𝐹(𝑎) = 𝑏 − 𝑎 = ∫ 2 ∗ 𝑡 𝑑𝑡 = lim ∑ 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 ∗ = 2 ∗ 𝑡1 ∗ + 2 ∗ 𝑡2 ∗ + ⋯ + 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑛 ∗

𝑛→∞ 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛

𝑎 𝑖=1

where a is an initial time and b is a finish time (first and last endpoints) within one chosen interval

𝑏−𝑎

If 𝑑𝑡 = ∆𝑡 = 𝑛

= 0 , then every term in the limit of Riemann’s sum is equal to zero; hence, the whole series is equal to zero:

𝑛

𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎

lim ∑ 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 ∗ = 2 ∗ 𝑡1 ∗ + 2 ∗ 𝑡2 ∗ + ⋯ + 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑛 ∗ = 2 ∗ 𝑡1 ∗ 0 + 2 ∗ 𝑡2 ∗ 0 + ⋯ + 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑛 ∗ 0 = 0

𝑛→∞ 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛

𝑖=1

Moreover, every 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 expresses a non-existing value of the speed as the derivative of 𝐹(𝑥) because existing values of the speed

are expressed by 2 ∗ 𝑡 + ℎ as it was proved above. As a result, there is a paradoxical situation that every term of the series is

zero and a non-existing value of the speed is used in every term. However, if 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 is an approximation of an existing value of

the speed at 𝑡𝑖 , what is an error if one calculates a passed distance during the interval from a to b by using the definite integral?

To be mentioned, a signed area under the derivative function curve increases if 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 + ℎ is used instead of 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 . Next, assign

Series 1 as a signed area under the derivative function curve 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 , and Series 2 as a signed area of ((2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 + ℎ) − 2 ∗ 𝑡𝑖 ). In

other words, Series 2 is the limit of Riemann’s sum (or simply infinite series) in which 𝑓(𝑡𝑖 ) is replaced with just ℎ:

𝑏 𝑛

𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎 𝑏−𝑎

∫ ℎ 𝑑𝑡 = lim ∑ ℎ ∗ =ℎ∗ +ℎ∗ + ⋯+ ℎ ∗

𝑛→∞ 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛 𝑛

𝑎 𝑖=1

Notice that all signed area is positive if the derivative function curve is above the t – axis during the chosen interval.

𝑏−𝑎

So if ignore that every term is multiplied by zero remembering 𝑛 = 0 , that is, allege that all these terms can be added to

some number except zero, and assume that ℎ is as small as needed, then another problem appears. This problem is that there

are infinitely many terms during any chosen interval but adding up infinitely many as-small-as-needed (except zero) terms is

always resulting into infinity! Therefore, Series 2 diverges, that is, its limit of the partial sums is always infinity. In this case, it

does not matter how small (except zero) ℎ is.

140

120

100

80

60

40

20

0

5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60

Series 1 Series 2

However, it is seen that the brown area is not infinite on the diagram above. Under such circumstances, it is impossible to define

an error by using Series 2. Notice that the limit of nth-terms of both Series 1 and Series 2 is not zero if n goes to infinity;

therefore, such series diverge4!

If allege that the terms of the limit (definite integral) of Riemann’s sum are not zeros and can be added to some number, then

another paradoxical point emerges. This point is that Series 1 diverges in this case, i.e. its limit of the partial sums is infinity,

because there are infinitely many terms which are not zeros. But the definite integrals give signed areas within some closed

intervals (see the diagram of Series 1 and Series 2 above). As seen, these areas are not infinite. All of this does not make any

physical sense in my opinion.

Let’s algebraically consider a difference between multiplying an as-small-as-needed number by infinity and adding infinitely

many as-small-as-needed equal positive numbers, for example:

4

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divergent_series

If I understand right, these two operations must result in infinity, and it does not matter which small numbers (except zero) are

chosen! However, adding infinitely many terms of Riemann’s sum (definite integral) results in different amounts of signed area,

volume, mass during chosen intervals. Notice that it makes physical sense only if ∆𝑥 ≠ 0 in my opinion.

In other words, multiplying any number (except zero) by infinity is always giving infinity. Therefore, multiplying any amount

(except zero amount) of matter by infinity is always resulting into infinite amount of matter if I do not mistake! The same is

about adding any amount (except zero) of matter infinitely many times. As an example of the limit (definite integral) of

Riemann’s sum in which all terms are equal to each other is area under a straight line parallel to the horizontal axis (see diagram

below).

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

Final Conclusions:

If summarize all the points, ℎ in the definition of the derivative (limit) must be some infinitesimal number so that the derivatives

can express existing (real) physical parameters in my opinion.

To get the definite integrals making a physical sense, ∆𝑥, ∆𝑦, ∆𝑧 must be some infinitesimal value (except zero); however, it

leads to removing the infinite number of Riemann’s sum terms in its limit (definite integral).

At present, the calculations related with derivatives and integrals are solved only mathematically by using the algebraic tricks

and allegations in my opinion. At still, some physical sense is lost in these operations. I think the main problem that does not

allow to make physical sense in these operations is the application of infinity. In other words, infinity does not work in these

operations so that they can make sense.

## Much more than documents.

Discover everything Scribd has to offer, including books and audiobooks from major publishers.

Cancel anytime.