How has it been proven that the derivative of position is velocity and the derivative of velocity is acceleration? From Google searching, it seems that everyone just states it as fact without any proof behind it.
How to prove the derivative of position is velocity and of velocity is acceleration?
-
18It's a definition, not a proof. – 2012-12-16
-
2There's no such thing as definition without a proof in mathematics. Everything can be proved somehow and I'm also looking for an analitic answer to the question, the conceptial one (given by @Jasper Loy) can be reached by drawing a graph and letting the brain figure it out. – 2013-03-17
-
12@MarcoAurélioDeleu That's complete nonsense. *Proofs* are needed to justify logical statements, but definitions aren't logical statements. Definitions aren't true or false or provable or unprovable. Definitions allow us to make shorthands for bundles of hypotheses (for instance, the definition of a circle in geometry.) You can't *prove* the definition of a circle. – 2013-09-30
-
2It does not need proof. I could say "let the amount of tinned food you buy per week be called Tintin!" That does not need a proof of any sort does it. It is just a definition / statement to allow us to use it in speech, calculations, etc. In terms of derivatives, after velocity there is acceleration, jerk, jounce, crackle, pop,... The derivative list is endless. – 2014-07-04
-
0Possibly of interest: [What does the integral of position with respect to time mean?](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/1637409) – 2017-07-21
3 Answers
Velocity is defined as the rate of change of displacement with respect to time, and acceleration is defined as the rate of change of velocity with respect to time.
If we define change in position as $\delta x$ and a change in time as $\delta t$, then we, know that the average velocity over that time is given by $$\frac{\delta x}{\delta t}.$$ But, we do not want to know the average velocity, so we want to find the instantaneous velocity. In this case, we, by the definition of the derivative, want to take the limit as $\delta t\rightarrow0$. So, we have as velocity $$\lim_{\delta t \to 0} \frac{\delta x}{\delta t}=x'(t)$$ as desired. This isn't really a proof, per se, but it is a deeper explanation which perhaps you are seeking. A similar explanation applies to acceleration.
The derivative is the slope of the function. So if the function is $f(x)=5x-3$, then $f'(x)=5$, because the derivative is the slope of the function. Velocity is the change in position, so it's the slope of the position. Acceleration is the change in velocity, so it is the change in velocity. Since derivatives are about slope, that is how the derivative of position is velocity, and the derivative of velocity is acceleration. So if the position can be expressed with the function $f(x)=x^2 - 3x + 7$, then the derivative would be $f'(x)=2x-3$ since that is the slope of the function at any given point, and since it is the slope of the position function, it is velocity. Same for acceleration; $f"(x)=2$, which is the derivative of velocity, which makes it slope. The slope of velocity is acceleration. This is how the derivative of position is velocity and the derivative is position.
NOTE: These functions are entirely hypothetical and were created on the spur of the moment.
-
0There is an unstated assumption here that the position and velocity are functions and that the functions have been plotted on a graph. Without the graph, the statements about "slope" are nonsense. The other missing part of this answer is: functions of _what_? The answer doesn't say. Position can be a function of many different things, but in this particular case it must be a function of _time_ or again the answer is nonsense. So that is another unstated assumption of the answer. I am not convinced that this answer does more good than harm to anyone reading it. – 2018-12-07