5/27/2015

calculus - Why is the derivative a limit? - Mathematics Stack Exchange

sign up

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.

log in

tour

help

Take the 2-minute tour

Why is the derivative a limit?

Start by assuming that function curves are made of an infinite amount of lines (i.e. look at the image above but instead of
approximating it using a finite number of lines, use infinite lines). This intuition is supported by the arc length formula (integral of
infinite "line approximations").
Let's call the point at the top ("the highest point") point x. Refer to the n point before that as x n and the n point after that as
x + n . I want to calculate the derivative at point x. In other words I want to calculate the slope of the line connecting point x and
x + 1.
th

th

I can start be drawing a secant line from point x to x + n and using the slope to approximate the derivative. As n approaches 1, you get
better approximations of the derivative. As n = 1 you exactly have the derivative.
Now draw a secant line from point x to x n . As n approaches 1 you get infinitely better approximations of the slope of the line
between x and x 1, but not x and x + 1. No matter how close to n=1 you get you will never get the slope of the line that connects x
and x + 1 (which is what the derivative is: the rate of change of the function between a point and the next infinitesimal point).
So why is the derivative the limit:
f (x + h) f (x)
lim
h

h0

instead of:
f (x + h) f (x)
lim
h0

Since using the above intuition shows that the left hand limit doesn't give you the slope of the line between x and the next infinitesimal
point.
(calculus ) (intuition)
asked Jan 1 8 '1 4 at 20:1 1
dfg
1

We want the geometric intuition of the limit to be true from any side of
20:15

... DonAntonio Jan 18 '14 at

I guess your intuition is missing something: for a function to be differentiable, you want the rate of change
from x 1 to x to be the same as of x to x + 1 . You don't want the derivative to change dramatically at
some point M Turgeon Jan 18 '14 at 20:16
@DonAntonio Well yeah, but why doesn't this intuition allow that? There has to be some truth to it since its
derived from the arc length formula. dfg Jan 18 '14 at 20:18
Uh, @dfg? The "arc length formula"? I don't see it clearly...anyway, if your intuition serves you well from the
right I can't see how won't it serve you well from the left...:) DonAntonio Jan 18 '14 at 20:20
@MTurgeon But the derivative doesn't change drastically. Any amount of difference between the next slope
and the previous slope renders the limit "wrong" according to this intuition. If you assume that the previous
slope is always equal to to the next "slope", then all curves would have to be lines. (constant derivative)
dfg Jan 18 '14 at 20:20

4 Answers

It is an interesting question. Y our understanding of the situation is quite good, you are just
missing a small element.
Suppose your function is
f (x) = |x|

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/642973/why-is-the-derivative-a-limit

1/4

5/27/2015

calculus - Why is the derivative a limit? - Mathematics Stack Exchange

Using your technique, the limit from the right, you find that the slope at x = 0 is simply 1. But
what if you use the same technique starting from the left? Y ou get that the slope at x = 0 is
1 . This is a contradiction. Y ou find that the slope at a certain point can be two different
things, but this is far off the general definition of the tangeant line and its slope!
In fact, in the case of f (x) = |x| , the derivative at x = 0 is said to be undefined, and you can
easily understand why by taking a look at the graph. But, in some cases, you might only be
interested in what is going on with the limit from the right, or maybe with the limit from the
left.

Added:
A limit

lim f (a)

is only defined if

xa

edited Jan 1 8 '1 4 at 21 :24

TMM
8,234

lim f (a) = L
xa

and

lim
xa

f (a) = L

answered Jan 1 8 '1 4 at 20:23

Oliv ier

22

43

636

But isn't the definition of a derivative the rate of change between an infinitesimal point and the next
infinitesimal point? Why do you care about the previous rate of change? dfg Jan 18 '14 at 20:25
Why the right point rather than the left? The general limit is only defined if both left and right are defined and
give the same result. If you only want to know about what is going on at the right, you specify it. Olivier
Jan 18 '14 at 20:27
I suppose you could define the derivative as the left point. But why would the "right" point and "left" point
change always be the same? If the function always changes at the same rate to the next point as it did from
the previous point doesn't that imply the function is a line? dfg Jan 18 '14 at 20:30
It's a good concern, but in fact that the slope is the same at the left and at the right of a point x doesn't imply
that the function is a line. It implies that the function looks very much like a line at the infinitesimal scale at
the point x , that is that a line would very well approximate the function at a small scale. Olivier Jan 18 '14
at 20:33
And the derivative is defined as the general limit, that is it has to be defined both with the limit from the left
and with the limit from the right. Otherwise, we can have a situation where a "spike" in a function has a
slope. Olivier Jan 18 '14 at 20:34

Did you find this question interesting? Try our newsletter

Sign up for our newsletter and get our top new
questions deliv ered to y our inbox (see an ex ample ).

As others have noted, your definition means that f (x) = |x| is differentiable at zero. But why
is the positive direction any more important than the left? Y ou could define a "right derivative"
like this if you wanted to, it's just that the two-sided derivative has nicer properties.
Y ou say "Start by assuming that function curves are made of an infinite amount of lines". This
is actually really close to the (in my opinion) best way to think about the derivative: as the
linear function that best approximates f at that point. Y ou take a small neighborhood around
x , and as that neighborhood gets smaller and smaller, y f (x ) = f (x )(x x ) looks
more and more like y = f (x) .

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/642973/why-is-the-derivative-a-limit

2/4

5/27/2015

calculus - Why is the derivative a limit? - Mathematics Stack Exchange

However, for a function like f (x) = |x| , there's no line you can draw at (0, 0) that
approximates it well. No matter how close you zoom in, it will look like this:

Lastly, your intuition about "infinite line segments" is wrong. Y ou're breaking f into finitely
many pieces, looking at the slope between x and x , and taking the limit as n 1 . But this
depends a lot on how many pieces you break it into, and where you break them! Plus, since it's
finite, you could just cut to the chase and find the slope between x and x .
0

The limit you should be looking at is "the slope between x and x as the number of slices
increases" (well, more accurately, as |x x | 0 ). In many cases, this will be the same
whether x is on the left or the right. But as in the first paragraph, why is right any more
interesting than left?
0

answered Jan 1 8 '1 4 at 20:53

Henry Swanson
5,789

11

34

According to your intuition the function

f (x) = {

1,

x 0

0,

x < 0

1,

x > 0

0,

x 0

is differentiable everywhere, while

g(x) = {

is not.
In particular, in your intuition a function can be differentiable at a point while failing to be
continuous.
answered Jan 1 8 '1 4 at 20:20
Martin Argerami
45.9k

33

84

But what exactly about the intuition is wrong? dfg Jan 18 '14 at 20:23
Why do you care about how the function changed from the previous point to the current point? I thought the
derivative is a measure of how the function is going to change "next"? dfg Jan 18 '14 at 20:27
That you are looking at the slope from just one side. You make that choice when you say " I want to
calculate the slope of the line connecting point x and x+1". As you can see from the example, that leads you
to a notion where a point of discontinuity can a have a slope. Nothing wrong with that, but it is way more
limited than the usual notion. Martin Argerami Jan 18 '14 at 20:28
Your assertion that the derivative is a measure of how the function is going to change "next" does not agree

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/642973/why-is-the-derivative-a-limit

3/4

5/27/2015

calculus - Why is the derivative a limit? - Mathematics Stack Exchange

with basic intuition. If for example you think of the derivative as the velocity, then it makes a lot more sense
to think of it as the change from the previous point to the current one; unless you think that the current
velocity of a particle should depend on future behaviour! Martin Argerami Jan 18 '14 at 20:31
But the change from the previous point to the current one gives you the "old" velocity. The change to the next
one tells you how the object is moving now. How can my intuition of "line approximations" be adjusted to
agree with the general definition? dfg Jan 18 '14 at 20:35

Y our intuition is indeed flawed. Say we can somehow deal with infinitesimal values. Let be
such an infinitesimal value, greater than 0, but smaller than any positive real number. Then
f(x+)f(x)

the derivative of f at x would be

(this is probably what you want to convey with
your f (x + 1) above), and there would be no need for limits at all. Now indeed for a

f(x)f(x)

f(x+)f(x)

differentiable f the value of

would differ from
only by an infinitesimal
value, so it would not matter which one you took. The size of that infinitesimal difference
would of course determine the second derivative.

answered Jan 1 8 '1 4 at 21 :1 9

Carsten Schultz
4,093

18

http://math.stackexchange.com/questions/642973/why-is-the-derivative-a-limit

4/4