10

Update 2018/4/18: I've found a book in which the definition 5) is discussed. See Topology, Calculus and Approximation by Vilmos Komornik, published by Springer-Verlag , page 98, Lemma 4.1.


Original Question:

I've come across "Carathéodory Derivative" in my textbook, which is,

Definition 1) Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R},\quad t\mapsto f(t)$ be a function, $a\in \mathbb{R}.$ Then if there exists a map $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R}, \quad t\mapsto \varphi(t)$, which satisfies $$1) \quad f(x)-f(a)=\varphi(x)\cdot(x-a),\forall x\in \mathbb{R};$$ $$2) \quad \text{$\varphi $ is continuous at the point a} ,$$ then we call $\varphi(a)$ the derivative of $f$ at point $a$.

And compared with the traditional definition of derivative:

Definition 2) Let $f:\mathbb{R}\to \mathbb{R},\quad t\mapsto f(t)$ be a function, $a\in \mathbb{R}.$ Then if the limit $$\lim_{x\to a}{f(x)-f(a)\over{x-a}}$$ exists, then the value of this limit is called the derivative of $f$ at point $a$.

I can prove that (it's not difficult) these two definitions above are equivalent to each other. But when I look at the high-dimensional condition, things get complicated.

Definition 3) Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}^m,\quad t\mapsto f(t)$ be a multivariate function, $a\in \mathbb{R}^n,$ Then if there exists a map $\varphi:\mathbb{R}\to M_{m\times n}(\mathbb{R}),\quad t\mapsto \varphi(t)$, which satisfies $$1) \quad f(x)-f(a)=\varphi(x)\cdot(x-a),\forall x\in \mathbb{R}^n;$$ $$2) \quad \text{$\varphi $ is continuous at the point a} ,$$ then we call $\varphi(a)$ the derivative of $f$ at point $a$.

And consider the traditional definition of derivative

Definition 4) Let $f:\mathbb{R}^n\to \mathbb{R}^m,\quad t\mapsto f(t)$ be a multivariate function, $a\in \mathbb{R}^n.$ Then if there exists a matrix $A\in M_{m\times n}(\mathbb{R}),$ such that $$\lim_{x\to a}{||f(x)-f(a)-A\cdot (x-a)||\over{||x-a||}}=0,$$ then matrix $A$ is called the derivative of $f$ at point $a$.

Question: I expect that definition 3) is equivalent to definition 4), but I can only prove that $\mathrm{def}\ 3)\Rightarrow \mathrm{def}\ 4).$ I doubt whether $\mathrm{def}\ 4)\Rightarrow \mathrm{def}\ 3)$ is correct. Any help is appreciated.

P.S. Now I am able to do some generalization to definition 3).

Definition 5) Let $E,F$ be two Banach spaces, $a\in E.$ $\mathcal{L}(E;F)$ be the set of continuous linear map $E\to F,$ then consider function $f:E\to F, \quad t\mapsto f(t),$ then if there exists a map $\varphi:E\to \mathcal{L}(E;F), \ t\mapsto \varphi(t),$ such that$$1) \quad f(x)-f(a)=(\varphi(x))(x-a),\forall x\in E;$$ $$2) \quad \text{$\varphi $ is continuous at the point a} ,$$ then we call $\varphi(a)$ the derivative of $f$ at point $a.$

Using Hahn-Banach theorem, we can see this definition is also equivalent to the classic definition of derivative on Banach space.

P.P.S: A more general condition is,

Definition 6) Let $E,F$ be two additive groups, and $\mathcal{T}$ be a topology over $E,$ $\mathcal{T'}$ be a topology over $\mathcal{L}(E;F)$, $a\in E.$ Here $\mathcal{L}(E;F)$ is the set of continuous linear map $E\to F.$ Consider function $f:E\to F, \quad t\mapsto f(t),$ then if there exists a map $\varphi:(E,\mathcal{T})\to (\mathcal{L}(E;F),\mathcal{T'}), \ t\mapsto \varphi(t),$ such that$$1) \quad f(x)-f(a)=(\varphi(x))(x-a),\forall x\in E;$$ $$2) \quad \text{$\varphi $ is continuous at the point a} ,$$ then we call $\varphi(a)$ a derivative of $f$ at point $a,$ with respect to topology $\mathcal{T}$ and topology $\mathcal{T'}.$ (Under this condition the derivative may not be unique.)

painday
  • 968
  • 1
    Is 4) really widely used? It requires the use of the Euclidean norm, which isn't very desirable. We want to be able to do calculus on spaces that don't have a norm defined on them, or for which the norm isn't Euclidean. For example, we want to be able to use coordinates that are not cartesian. –  Jun 13 '17 at 13:25
  • @ Ben Crowell: Right, I just take it for example (we're learning multivariate calculus now, so I'm familiar with this definition.) – painday Jun 13 '17 at 13:29
  • 2
    @BenCrowell (4) is the standard definition. Note that in a finite-dimensional space, any two norms are equivalent (i.e., their ratio is bounded above and bounded away from zero), so the definition of the derivative is actually independent of the norm chosen. – user49640 Jun 13 '17 at 13:34
  • 1
    This definition is discussed in the finite-dimensional case in: Ernesto Acosta G., and Cesar Delgado G. "Frechet vs. Caratheodory." The American Mathematical Monthly 101, no. 4 (1994): 332-38. doi:10.2307/2975625 It also seems to have been extended to more general spaces in a 1995 master's thesis by R.C. Tovar, La derivada de Caratheodory en espacios vectoriales pseudotopológicos, reference to which I found on this page: http://scienti.colciencias.gov.co:8081/cvlac/visualizador/generarCurriculoCv.do?cod_rh=0000077917 However, I have no idea how to get a master's thesis from Colombia. – user49640 Jun 14 '17 at 04:28
  • @user49640: Wow, that's surprising! I'll read the first paper right now. – painday Jun 14 '17 at 05:53
  • the definition 4 is standard definition of derivative that is Frechet derivative. used in lang cartan and Dieudonne. Lang in one of his texts redfines this using tangent function and remarks that being tangent is independent of norm. inhis book in differential geometry he gives yet one more defintion in topological vector spaces/. – Anil Pedgaonkar Jul 28 '20 at 12:42

4 Answers4

5

After translating and subtracting a linear function from $f$, we can assume that $a = 0$, that $f(0) = 0$ and that $A = 0$. So we're assuming that $f(x) = \varepsilon(x)||x||$ for some vector-valued function $\varepsilon(x)$ with $\varepsilon(x) \to 0$ as $x \to 0$. We must show that there is a matrix-valued function $\varphi(x)$ with $\varphi(x) \to 0$ as $x \to 0$ and $f(x) = \varphi(x) \cdot x$.

To achieve this, for all $x \ne 0$ we define $\varphi(x) \cdot h = \langle \frac{x}{||x||},h \rangle \varepsilon(x)$. We have $||\varphi(x)|| = ||\varepsilon(x)||$, where by $||\varphi(x)||$ I mean the operator-norm of $\varphi(x)$, so it is clear that $\varphi(x)$ satisfies our requirements.

user49640
  • 2,704
  • Great! It's an amazingly creative method, and the application of inner product is excellent and really clever! – painday Jun 13 '17 at 15:33
  • You can use this method in an arbitrary normed vector space, even an infinite-dimensional one, but you need to replace the use of the inner product by an appeal to the Hahn-Banach theorem. – user49640 Jun 13 '17 at 15:35
  • Thanks a lot, and with your help now I can avoid the annoying fraction in the definition of derivative ! I dislike the fraction appearing in a limit... :) – painday Jun 13 '17 at 15:39
  • In practice, I do this. I write $f(x) = f(a) + df(x) \cdot (x-a) + \varepsilon(x) ||x - a||$ with $\varepsilon(x) \to 0$ as $x \to a$. So there are no fractions there. I don't think I had ever seen form (3) before doing this problem. Obviously $\varphi(x)$ is underspecified, so that presents a problem. With the other form, you know exactly what $A$ has to be if you know your function's partial derivatives. – user49640 Jun 13 '17 at 15:42
  • Right, and I have established many theorems to talk about this problem. In fact , I've proved that as long as all the partial derivatives exist, then $\varphi(a)$ is uniquely determined. And actually as long as $u_1,\cdots,u_n$ is a basis of $\mathbb{R}^n$, and all the direction derivative $ D_{u_i} f_j $ exist, then $\varphi(a)$ is also uniquely determined by them. – painday Jun 13 '17 at 15:48
  • Okay, $\varphi(a)$ is uniquely determined, but not $\varphi(x)$. On the other hand, $\varepsilon(x)$ is uniquely determined. – user49640 Jun 13 '17 at 15:51
  • And I prefer to use definition 3) because when I'm dealing with the composed function of two differentiable functions, this definition is very convenient to use, and avoid the endless discussion of $\varepsilon$ and $\delta$... – painday Jun 13 '17 at 15:52
2

Define the mapping $\psi$ as

$$\psi(x) = {f(x)-f(a) - A(x-a)\over |x-a|^2} (x-a)\cdot$$

then if $x\ne a$ you have that $x\ne a$ you have that $f(x)-f(a) - A(x-a) = \psi(x) (x-a)$. And you have that

$$||\psi(x)|| = {||f(x)-f(a) - A(x-a)||\over||x-a||}$$

So you have that $||\psi(x)||\to 0$ as $x\to a$. Now we have

$$f(x)-f(a) = A(x-a) + \psi(x) (x-a) = (A-\psi(x))(x-a)$$

Now we have that since $||\psi(x)||\to 0$ that $\varphi(x) = A-\psi(x)$ is continuous at $a$.

skyking
  • 16,654
  • @painday It seem there were a lapse in my reasoning. However I think that can be fixed as we can chose $\psi$ in such a way that equality holds as we don't require $\psi(x) u$ to be non-zero if $u$ is perpendicular to $x-a$. – skyking Jun 13 '17 at 13:48
  • But it's quite difficult to choose such a mapping, and I highly suspect there are some counter-examples for some certain functions... – painday Jun 13 '17 at 13:52
  • @ChristianBlatter No, but that wasn't the expression, it was $\psi(x)(x-a)$ that is apply the mapping $\psi(x)$ to $(x-a)$. – skyking Jun 13 '17 at 15:47
  • @painday I've updated the answer with a concrete definition of $\psi(x)$ with those properties. – skyking Jun 13 '17 at 15:48
  • It's correct, and this method is similar to @user 49640 's. Inner product is so useful! – painday Jun 13 '17 at 16:02
-2

the definition 4 is standard definition of derivative that is Frechet derivative. used in lang cartan and Dieudonne. Lang in one of his texts redefines this using tangent function and remarks that being tangent is independent of norm. in his book in differential geometry he gives yet one more definition in topological vector spaces/. amap f : X -> y is differentiable at a point a if there exists a continuous linear transformation A from X to Y and f (x) -f(a) -A(x-a) = S( x-a) and S is tangent at 0 meansS(x-a) where s is tangent at 0 In banach spaces s is tangent at 0 means s(h)/| h| --> 0as h --> 0. where here h = x(x-a) in topologocal vector spaces s( h) is tangent at 0 is defined by him as given a nbd W of 0 in Y there exists a nbd U of 0 in X, such that S( th) is conatined in o(t)W where t is real number and o(t) is areal valued function of o(t) that is o(t)/| t| --> 0. He remarks that in Banach space it reduces to usual tangent definition and this is not clear to me. further intuition is faint for this definition,,. on the other hand definition 3 carathedory definition can be perfectly generalized in top vector space verbatim. but showing 4 imples 3 requires hahan Banach theorem which is unpleasant as even in Banach spaces Calculus otherwise does not use the theorem. Also on its own HBT implies Banach tarski paradox . HBT uses axiom of choice. on its own implies the paradox.Even for separable Banach spaces HBT involves axiom of dependent choice which also has some unpleasant consequences. Recent research in computer science and foundations indicates that uncountable axiom of choice is counterintuitive. A simple prisoners puzzle discussed in Cornell university shows it vividly. So we welcome any modification of caratheodory definition so that in Banach spaces frechet differentiability implies caratheodory. Calculus in Banach spaces is almost identical to calculus in euclidean spaces Also i invite readers to show the tangent in tvs implies and equivalent to tangent in Banach spaces in the next answer i propose a modification of caratheodory definition

Anil Pedgaonkar
  • 303
  • 1
  • 7
-2

Let X,Y be topological spaces we say a map f X --> Y is differentiable at a if f(x) - f(a) = s(x) (x-a) and there exists a continuous linear map A from X to Y with s(a) = A i suggest alternatives for s

  1. for each x, s(x) is a continuous linear map defined on one dimensional subspace of X to Y, and as x--->a s(x) tends to s(a)
  2. for each x, s(x)( x-a) is a vector y in Y and as x-->a , y ---> a , s(x)( h) ---> A.h where h = x-a
  3. we do not require s(x) to be linear but just continuous and condition as in 2. can we now avoid hahn banach theory hhbt does not hold in tvs so direct caratheodory definition though nice in tvs will pit severe indirect restriction on differentiation
Anil Pedgaonkar
  • 303
  • 1
  • 7