I'm a high schooler and today my teacher taught us the implicit differentiation, in which he gave us a very brief explanation of implicit function.
I didn't quite get it at that time so I decided to look it up a little and honestly, the concept of implicit functions just doesn't make sense to me, why are they even functions? The definitions of functions I was taught almost totally contradicts everything about implicit functions.
Also, how does it make sense to differentiate something which is not even in the explicit form, $y= f(x)$, seeing as how the definition of derivative is given using exactly that,
$f'(x) = \lim\limits_{h\to0} \dfrac{ f(x+h)- f(x)}{h}$
But the main thing that concerns me is, if the implicit functions are of the form $F(x,y)=0$ (which I assume is the equation of all points lying on the curve formed on the XY plane when the surface intersects it) then why do we assume $y$ is some composite function of $x$ and find $\frac{dy}{dx}$?
I'm really really confused right now and I have lots and lots of questions, someone pls help.
EDIT : $f$ is a function from $A$ to $B$, if it maps every element of $A$ to a unique element of $B$
in which case,
$x^2+y^2 = 4$ fails the vertical line test.
There's no reason that the locus of points satisfying $F(x,y) = 0$ has to be a function in the sense of its graph passing the vertical line test: e.g. if $F(x,y) = x^2 + y^2 - 1$ then that locus would be a unit circle. However, some functions that really are functions, whose graphs pass the vertical line test, would be prohibitive to explicitly write down in the form $y = f(x)$, but might be more easily described as the set of points satisfying $F(x,y) = 0$.
As a contrived example, if you'd never heard of the $\ln$ function, you would have trouble turning the equation $x = e^y$ into an explicit function of $y$ in terms of $x$, but you could still implicitly define $f(x)$ for $x > 0$, and find its derivative.