Page:Lawhead columbia 0054D 12326.pdf/215

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.


original system inexactly in some sense.

It’s worth pointing out that Norton’s two definitions will, at least sometimes, exist on a continuum with one another: in some cases, approximations can be smoothly transformed into idealizations.[1]

This interconversion is possible, for instance, in cases where the limits used in constructing idealized parameterizations are “well-behaved” in the sense that the exclusive use of limit quantities in the construction of the idealized system still results in a physically realizable system. This will not always be the case. For example, consider some system whose complete state at a time is described by an equation of the form

6(b)

In this case, both and can be taken as parameterizations of . There are a number of approximations we might consider. For instance, we might wonder what happens to as and both approach 0. This yields a prediction that is perfectly mathematically consistent; approaches a real value as both those parameters approach 0. By Norton’s definition this is an approximation of , since we’re examining the system’s behavior in a particular limit case.

However, consider the difference between this approximation and the idealization of in which = 0 and = 0. Despite the fact that the approximation yielded by considering the system’s behavior as and both approach 0 is perfectly comprehensible (and hopefully informative as well), actually setting those two values to 0 yields a function value that’s undefined. The limits involved in the creation of the approximation are not “well behaved” in


  1. Norton (2012), p. 212

205