Re: bug? f'[x]'
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg90933] Re: bug? f'[x]'
- From: Ben <Benjamin.R.Lewis at gmail.com>
- Date: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:52:47 -0400 (EDT)
- References: <200807281153.HAA20595@smc.vnet.net> <344EC9C4-D0D2-4141-855E-DBE283AA7586@mimuw.edu.pl>
Mathematica does distinguish between f'[x] (evaluating the derivative)
and f[x]' (derivative of the evaluation), so it seems unreasonable
that this behaviour should change when f is written in terms of its
antiderivative (i.e., f->g').
In other words, what is the justification for Derivative[i]
[ (Derivative[j][g][x]) ][y] ever evaluating to Derivative[i+j][g][x]
Even this behaviour is not consistent. Mathematica reverts to
mathematically correct behaviour again if g was explicitly specified.
For example, consider the function that takes an argument and returns
the operator for multiplication by the cube of that argument
(g=Function[x,Function[y,y*x^3]]). The derivative of its evaluation is
obviously (an operator that returns) a constant (namely the cube of
that argument, or zero for higher derivatives). By contrast, the
evaluation of the derivative is not a constant (it is the partial with
respect to the argument, an operator for multiplication by thrice the
squared argument; zero is not produced until the fourth derivative).
Even Derivative[j]//Derivative[i] evaluates further, nonsensically
(garbage input ought only echo), as though a rule constraint had been
overlooked. I wondered if there could be scoping error, as internal
conversions involving #& are documented for Derivative. Also, this is
not the only case of odd behaviour involving the distinction between
numbers and operators:
On Jul 29, 3:48 pm, Andrzej Kozlowski <a... at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote:
> Since, however, it is not documented
> (and illogical) it is certianly cannot be regarded as any kind of "bug".
Prev by Date:
Re: Re: Text search within a documentation page?
Next by Date:
Re: remove higher orders terms from mathemtica's result
Previous by thread:
Re: bug? f'[x]'
Next by thread:
Re: Re: bug? f'[x]'