Leibniz's notation and how suggestive it is

  • Thread starter Thread starter Werg22
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Notation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on Leibniz's notation and its application in integral calculus, particularly in the context of substitution and the chain rule. Participants emphasize that while derivatives can be manipulated as fractions, the same clarity does not extend to integrals without rigorous proof, specifically regarding the convergence of Riemann sums. The Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC) is highlighted as a crucial link between integration and differentiation, affirming the validity of substitution in integrals. The conversation encourages self-proving of the substitution rule using continuous functions and antiderivatives.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Leibniz's notation in calculus
  • Familiarity with the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC)
  • Knowledge of Riemann sums and their convergence
  • Basic concepts of derivatives and integrals
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of the Fundamental Theorem of Calculus (FTC)
  • Explore the properties of Riemann sums and their convergence criteria
  • Learn about the chain rule and its application in integration
  • Investigate the relationship between differentiation and integration through examples
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, mathematics educators, and anyone interested in deepening their understanding of the connections between differentiation and integration, particularly through the lens of Leibniz's notation.

Werg22
Messages
1,431
Reaction score
1
With the method of substitution with integrals, Leibniz's notation comes in handy has it shows us usefull transformation with simple manipulation. However, I'm asking myself what is the proof behind all that? For substituion, wouldn't have to use the definition of integral and use limits?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
All valid notational 'abuse' is justified by the chain rule. Rather sloppily: \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{dy}{du}\frac{du}{dx}
That is to say. You can prove the validity of the substitution rule in integrals and separation of variables in ODE's with the chain rule.
 
To phrase it another way, while the derivative is not a fraction, it is a limit of a fraction. We can always go back before the limit, make use of the fraction properties and then take the limit to show that derivatives has the properties of fractions. Leibniz notation, and especially, the definition of "differentials", dy= \left(\frac{dy}{dx}\right)dx, is a way of making use of that fact.
 
I understand that it is mearly an expression of fractions, and with derivatives the conclusions are obvious... however I fail to see that they make everything obvious for integrals, for there is no proof shown that the Riemann Sum in question will converge to the same result we find by manipulating dy and dx...
 
Yes there is since it is just the chain rule.
 
Werg22 said:
and with derivatives the conclusions are obvious... however I fail to see that they make everything obvious for integrals, for
Since integration is the 'reverse' of differentiation, everything that is obvious for differentiation has a mathematically trivial counterresult for integration. The substitution rule is just the integral version of the chain rule and the 'integration by parts'-rule is just the integral version of the product rule.

Why don't you try to prove the rule yourself? I`ll state it here:

If g' is continuous on [a,b] and f is continuous on the range of u=g(x), then:

\int_a^bf(g(x))g'(x)dx=\int_{g(a)}^{g(b)}f(u)du

Start by assuming F be an antiderivative of f. Note that F(g(x)) is an antiderivative of f(g(x))g'(x) by the chain rule.
You can fill in the rest.
 
Werg22 said:
I understand that it is mearly an expression of fractions, and with derivatives the conclusions are obvious... however I fail to see that they make everything obvious for integrals, for there is no proof shown that the Riemann Sum in question will converge to the same result we find by manipulating dy and dx...

You're forgetting the essential link between integration and differentiation provided by the FTC. There's a reason we call the theorem "fundamental!"
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K