Does the notion of average rate of change make sense for discontinuous functions?

457 Views Asked by At

The "slope of the secant line" interpretation makes perfect sense for continuous functions and anyone familiar with the derivative knows its applications. For example, if $f(x)=x^2$, then its average rate of change (AROC) over the interval $[1, 2]$ is $f_{\rm AROC}=\frac{f(2)-f(1)}{2-1}=3$, and this can be used to roughly approximate the derivative of $f$.

But what about a discontinuous function, such as $g(x)=\begin{cases}0&\text{for }x<\frac12\\1&\text{for }x\ge\frac12\end{cases}$ over $[0, 1]$, or $h(x)=\frac1x$ over $[-1, 1]$? Does the notion of AROC make sense, so that $g_{\rm AROC}=\frac{1-0}{1-0}=1$ and $h_{\rm AROC}=\frac{1-(-1)}{1-(-1)}=1$?

I cannot seem to find a formal definition for the AROC, although some textbooks and calculators like Wolfram|Alpha express the AROC of $f(x)$ in terms of the average value of $f'(x)$, e.g.

$$f(x)=x^2,x\in[1,2]\\ \implies f_{\rm AROC}=\frac1{2-1}\int_1^2\frac{\mathrm d(x^2)}{\mathrm dx}\,\mathrm dx=2\int_1^2x\,\mathrm dx=3$$

and this discussion usually accompanies the mean value theorem, which does not apply to discontinuous functions.

1

There are 1 best solutions below

0
On BEST ANSWER

The best I can come up with is defining $\lambda(x,y)=\frac{f(y)-f(x)}{y-x}$ and averaging it, using $$f_{AROC}=\frac{1}{\#U}\iint_U\lambda(x,y) dy dx$$

where I use $\#U$ to represent the length, area, volume, size etc of $U$.

For example, when $f: [1,2]\to [2,4] ; f(x)=x^2$, then $\lambda : [1,2]\times [1,2] \mapsto [2,4]; \lambda(x,y)=x+y$, and $$f_{AROC}=\frac{1}{1\cdot 1}\int_1^2\int_1^2 (x+y) dy dx =3$$

Applying this to $g$, we observe that: $$\lambda_g(x,y)=\begin{cases}\frac{-1}{y-x} & x\geq \frac 12, y< \frac 12 \\ \frac{1}{y-x} & x<\frac12, y\geq \frac12 \\ 0& \text{otherwise} \end{cases}$$

Again the area is $1\cdot 1=1$, and $$g_{AROC}=\bigg[\int_0^\frac 12 \int_\frac 12^1 \frac{1}{y-x}dy dx+\int_\frac12^1 \int_0^\frac 12 \frac{-1}{y-x} dy dx\bigg]=2\ln2$$

As seen here, note both double integrals are equal (but nasty!)

As for $h$, that integral does not converge, as is to be expected, due to the graph's asymptote at $x=0$