Please suggest whether I should use delta or dx method.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the appropriateness of using the delta method (##\Delta##) versus the differential method (##d##) in the derivation of the Neumann potential. Participants explore the implications of these notations in the context of calculus and physics, particularly focusing on the meaning and validity of expressions like ##dm=I dS##.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant initially derived the Neumann potential using the ##dx## method but was advised by their math teacher that expressions like ##dm=I dS## lack meaning in elementary calculus.
  • Another participant notes that in physics, ##d## represents a limit, suggesting that the use of ##d## is acceptable as long as this understanding is maintained.
  • A participant expresses confusion about the validity of using ##dm=I dS##, questioning whether it constitutes a logical fallacy compared to using ##\Delta m=I \Delta S##.
  • Some participants agree with the math teacher's perspective but also assert that as physicists, they find ##dm=I dS## to be a more readable expression than its delta counterpart.
  • One participant inquires whether understanding ##dm=I dS## necessitates advanced calculus or if there is a simpler explanation available.
  • A later reply suggests that the expression ##dm=I dS## is not necessarily advanced calculus, indicating it simply represents a proportional relationship between changes in ##S## and ##m##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the validity and readability of using ##dm=I dS## versus ##\Delta m=I \Delta S##. While some support the use of the differential notation, others uphold the delta notation as more appropriate in certain contexts. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the necessity of advanced calculus for understanding these expressions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the definitions of the terms used, as well as the assumptions underlying the use of differentials and deltas. The mathematical rigor and implications of these notations are not fully explored.

faheemahmed6000
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I previously made a derivation of Neumann potential. It can be found in the pdf file below. I originally made it in the ##dx## method. It involved equations like ##dm=I dS##. My maths teacher told that such an expression has no meaning, at least in elementary calculus. However I argued that my physics textbook uses such expressions countless times. Anyway I listened to my maths teacher and changed all ##d## with ##\Delta##. The problem with this was that my final results were not perfect but approximations.

Then I heard about differentials and non standard analysis where expressions like ##dm=I dS## has meaning. However as a graduate student in Physics, I have no understanding in these topics.

I think these differentials and non-standard analysis strongly suggest that I can go back to my previous ##dx## method.

Right now I have these two methods. Please suggest which of them is more proper and appropriate in my derivation of Neumann potential. Thanks in advance for your advice.
 

Attachments

Physics news on Phys.org
Your pdf uses ##\Delta## in the text, but ## \;d\ ## in the illustrations.
In physics, as long as you remember that ## \;d\ ## stands for a limit (like in ## \;{dy\over dx} = {\displaystyle \lim_{h\downarrow 0}}\;{y(x+h)-y(x)\over h} \ ##), you should be just fine.
 
##I=\dfrac{dm}{dS}## is a derivative. Here ##d## indeed stands for limit. I don't have problem there.

I am having problem with the expression: ##dm=I dS##. My math teacher said in terms of elementary calculus, this expression has no meaning. Yet, I think I can use it as in my Physics books. Or will it be a logical fallacy if I do it? Is it proper to replace ##\Delta m=I \Delta S## in my pdf with ##dm=I dS##
 
I agree with your math teacher, but I am a physicist and as a physicist I have no problem at all with ##dm=I\, dS##. Much more readable than ##\Delta m \approx I\, \Delta S \ ## or ##\Delta m = I\, \Delta S \ + {\mathcal O}(\Delta S)^2## .
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: faheemahmed6000
BvU said:
I agree with your math teacher, but I am a physicist and as a physicist I have no problem at all with ##dm=I\, dS##. Much more readable than ##\Delta m \approx I\, \Delta S \ ## or ##\Delta m = I\, \Delta S \ + {\mathcal O}(\Delta S)^2## .

Then is it necessary for me to learn advanced calculus in order to understand the meaning of ##dm=I dS##. Or is there any simpler way to understand this expression.
 
It's not really advanced calculus...
For a physicist ## dm=I \;dS ## simply means that a small change in ##S## means a change in ##m## that is ##I## times as big.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: faheemahmed6000

Similar threads

  • · Replies 50 ·
2
Replies
50
Views
5K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
14K