Leibniz notation, need clarification

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Werg22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Leibniz Notation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the clarification of Leibniz notation, specifically focusing on proving the limit of a certain expression related to derivatives and its connection to the second derivative, f''(x). The scope includes mathematical reasoning and historical context regarding the development of notation in calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Historical

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a multi-step approach to prove that the limit of a specific expression equals f''(x), emphasizing the need to establish certain conditions in steps 2 and 3.
  • Another participant suggests that applying l'Hopital's rule twice could yield the desired result, assuming f is twice differentiable.
  • A later reply questions whether Leibniz had the concepts underlying l'Hopital's rule and suggests there may be an alternative reasoning that Leibniz could have used.
  • Another participant challenges the speculative historical reasoning about Leibniz's notation, noting that notation like f(x) was developed much later by Euler and that proofs in the 17th century differed significantly from modern proofs.
  • This participant argues that the historical development of notation is complex and cannot be easily deduced without consulting original works or competent commentary on Leibniz.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the historical context of Leibniz's notation and the methods to prove the limit expression. There is no consensus on how Leibniz might have approached the problem or the implications of historical notation development.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in understanding historical mathematical notation and the evolution of proof techniques, which may not align with contemporary standards.

Werg22
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1
This question comes from how Leibniz chose his notation.

How to prove that the limit when h goes to 0 of the expression:

[tex]\frac{f(x + 2h) - f(x + h) - [f(x + h) - f(x)]}{h^{2}}[/tex]

is f''(x)?


Step 1: We know that

[tex]\frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h} = f'(x) + a[/tex]

Where "a" is a value that can be as small as we want, in function of h.

Step2:

Also,

It has occurred to me that first we must prove that

[tex]\frac{f(x + 2h) - f(x + h)}{h}[/tex] can be written under the form

[tex]f'(x + h) + b[/tex]

Step 3: The last condition that must be fufilled is that the limit as h goes to 0 of the expression [tex]\frac{b - a}{h}[/tex] is 0.

Step 4: That way we start with

[tex]\frac{f(x + 2h) - f(x + h) - [f(x + h) - f(x)]}{h^{2}}[/tex]

We write

[tex]\frac{f'(x + h) + b - [f'(x) + a]}{h}[/tex]

We rearange so

[tex]\frac{f'(x + h) - f'(x)}{h}+ \frac{b - a}{h}[/tex]

Now it would be clear the limit is f''(x).

The real problem is to prove step 2 and step 3... I tried but nothing occurred to me. Anyone care to try/help? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Assuming that [itex]f[/itex] is twice differentiable (which you must be already), just applying l'Hopital's rule twice to the original expression will get the result.
 
Okay, I see. Did Leibniz had the notions of what Hopital's rule implies? If not, there must be another evidence that Leibniz fell upon. Any idea in that case?
 
You can't fantasize in this way about the historical evolution of notation, Werg22!

To give you just a hint:
The notation f(x) was not at all developed at the time Leibniz chose his notation!
In fact, it was Euler, about 100 years after Leibniz who developed a proto-notation that eventually developed into f(x) in the 19th century.

Furthermore, proofs were generally something very different in the 17th century from proofs of today.

Apart from some solid arguments, most accepted proofs at that time is regarded as mere hand-waving in our time.


There are too many ways that a notation COULD have developed, making it IMPOSSIBLE to deduce how it actually came about.
The only way to find this out is to read the actual works by Leibniz, or better, works by competent commentators on Leibniz.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K