Splitting Derivative: Rules & Effects in Physics

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter transmini
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative Splitting
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the concept of splitting derivatives, specifically the notation ## \frac{dy}{dx} ##, into separate components ## dy ## and ## dx ##. Participants explore the theoretical and practical implications of this practice in calculus and physics, questioning the validity and rules governing such manipulations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants express confusion about the nature of ## dy ## and ## dx ##, noting that while they are not technically fractions, they can be treated as such in certain contexts, particularly in physics.
  • One participant proposes that it is permissible to split derivatives when it can be proven that the same result can be achieved without doing so, referencing the relationship between ## \frac{dy}{dt} ##, ## \frac{dx}{dt} ##, and ## \frac{dy}{dx} ##.
  • Another viewpoint suggests defining "dx" as a symbolic "differential" and treating derivatives as limits of fractions, which allows for manipulation similar to fractions.
  • There is a contention regarding the interpretation of ## dx ##, with some asserting it represents an infinitesimal change, while others argue it is synonymous with a finite change represented by ## \Delta x ##.
  • Participants discuss the meaning of ## dx ## in the context of integrals, with some clarifying that it indicates the variable of integration, while others emphasize its different meanings across various types of integrals.
  • Several participants engage in correcting each other’s statements about the definitions and uses of ## dy ##, ## dx ##, and ## \Delta y ##, highlighting the nuances in their meanings.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing views on the validity and interpretation of splitting derivatives and the meanings of different notations. Participants do not reach a consensus on the rules governing these practices.

Contextual Notes

Participants express uncertainty regarding the definitions and implications of differentials and derivatives, indicating a need for clarity on the distinctions between infinitesimals and finite changes. There are also unresolved mathematical steps in the arguments presented.

transmini
Messages
81
Reaction score
1
After doing a couple courses in physics as well as calculus and differential equations, I was starting to wonder about splitting a derivate, such as ## \frac{dy}{dx} ##, into separate pieces ##dy## and ##dx##. I know we've never done it in calculus or differential equations because it isn't technically a fraction, its one thing. But if that's the case, why does it work when doing it in more applied courses such as physics? Are there certain rules on when this kind of thing works and does not?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The general rule is that it is permissible to do it when you can prove that there is a way to arrive at the same result without doing it.

For example, it is fairly easy to prove that ##\frac{dy}{dt}/\frac{dx}{dt}=\frac{dy}{dx}## provided all three derivatives exist and ##\frac{dx}{dt}## is nonzero. The proof just uses the definition of derivative in terms of limits, together with properties of limits of products and quotients.

After a while you get to know what these valid uses are. If in doubt, don't just assume you are allowed to do it.
 
There are a number of different ways of handling this. The simplest is to define "dx" as a purely symbolic "differential", then define dy= f'(x) dx. Although you are correct that the derivative is NOT fraction it is a limit of fractions. By going back before the limit, using fractions properties then taking the limit, one can show that the derivative can be treated like a fraction. The "differential" notation above formalizes that.
 
dx just means change in x. dy/dx is change in y relative to a change in x. with integrals it is known as the integrand and it refers to the variable that is being integrated. Your supposed to understand that in calc 2 and 3 but seeing it in an application is not so easy. Its like an infinitely small change moreover and heck yea you can split that ish up screw the rules.
 
Josh S Thompson said:
dx just means change in x.
No, that would be ##\Delta x##. dx is the differential of x.
Josh S Thompson said:
dy/dx is change in y relative to a change in x.
dy/dx is one form of notation for the derivative of y with respect to x. It is defined as a limit.
$$\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \lim_{h \to 0}\frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}$$
The change in y relative to a change in x is ##\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}##.
Josh S Thompson said:
with integrals it is known as the integrand and it refers to the variable that is being integrated.
No, dx is not the integrand. In an indefinite integral such as ##\int 3x^2 + 2x~dx##, the integrand is ##3x^2 + 2x##. The dx part has different meanings for different kinds of integrals (e.g., Riemann integrals, Rieman-Stiltjes integrals, Lebesgue integrals).
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral):
The symbol dx (explained below) indicates the variable of integration, x. The function f(x) which is to be integrated is called the integrand.
Josh S Thompson said:
Your supposed to understand that in calc 2 and 3 but seeing it in an application is not so easy. Its like an infinitely small change moreover and heck yea you can split that ish up screw the rules.
 
Mark44 said:
No, dx is not the integrand. In an indefinite integral such as ∫3x 2 +2x dx \int 3x^2 + 2x~dx, the integrand is 3x 2 +2x 3x^2 + 2x. The dx part has different meanings for different kinds of integrals (e.g., Riemann integrals, Rieman-Stiltjes integrals, Lebesgue integrals).
From wikipedia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integral):
I don't understand I thought the dx refers to the variable that is being integrated, thank you for correcting me on the integrand. And yes I understand the integral as a sum such that dx would be finite and Tri-x. Moreover what's the big deal with dx not meaning change in x?
 
Mark44 said:
dy/dx is one form of notation for the derivative of y with respect to x. It is defined as a limit.
dydx =lim Δx→0 ΔyΔx =lim h→0 f(x+h)−f(x)h
\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \lim_{h \to 0}\frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}{h}
The change in y relative to a change in x is ΔyΔx \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}.
if you a function F(x) it will change relative to x. The change in F(x), dF/dx, is another function that changes relative to x. I don't see the need to say its the differential of x because its continuous. Isn't it the same thing anyways, and please tell me its not because every math teacher gets pissed off when you overlook dx. Please Mark44 help me understand, you can explain the different meanings I know you can.
 
Josh S Thompson said:
I don't understand I thought the dx refers to the variable that is being integrated
Yes, dx conveys that information in a Riemann integral. It has a different meaning in the other integrals I mentioned.
Josh S Thompson said:
, thank you for correcting me on the integrand. And yes I understand the integral as a sum such that dx would be finite and Tri-x.
What is Tri-x?
Josh S Thompson said:
Moreover what's the big deal with dx not meaning change in x?
dx is an infinitesimal, while ##\Delta x## means a small, but finite, change in x. In practice, dx and ##\Delta x## are treated as synonomous, but the same is not true for dy and ##\Delta y##.

In the picture below, the blue curve is supposed to be the graph of y = f(x). At the lower left corner of the triangle is the point ##(x_0, y_0)##, where ##y_0 = f(x_0)##. Partway up the vertical line is the distance dy, where dy = f'(x0) * dx. Farther up, the vertical line intersects the curve at ##(x_1, y_1)##, where ##y_1 = f(x_1)##, and ##x_1 = x_0 + dx = x_0 + \Delta x##.

We can estimate ##y_1## using the tangent line, as ##y_1 \approx y_0 + dy = y_0 + f'(x_0) dx##. Notice that because the curve is concave up, our estimate for ##y_1## will be smaller than the true value of ##y_1##, which would be ##y_1 = y_0 + \Delta y##.
Snapshot.jpg
 
Josh S Thompson said:
if you a function F(x) it will change relative to x.
There's a verb missing here. What are you trying to say?
Josh S Thompson said:
The change in F(x), dF/dx, is another function that changes relative to x.
No, this isn't right. The change in F is ##\Delta F##. DF/dx is the derivative of F with respect to x.
Let's say we're talking about two points (x1, F(x1)) and (x2, F(x2)), where x2 - x1 = ##\Delta x##.

The change in F is ##\Delta F## (or ##\Delta y## if y = F(x)), the change in the y values of function F. IOW, this is F(x2) - F(x1). This is only approximately equal to dF, and only when x2 - x1 is "small." The picture I drew in my other post shows the difference between dy and ##\Delta y##.
Josh S Thompson said:
I don't see the need to say its the differential of x because its continuous. Isn't it the same thing anyways, and please tell me its not because every math teacher gets pissed off when you overlook dx. Please Mark44 help me understand, you can explain the different meanings I know you can.
 
  • #10
Mark44 said:
What is Tri-x?
delta x

Mark44 said:
snapshot-jpg.91343.jpg

You know me too well, I think I get it and I agree but I just think with very small delta x delta y approaches dy. Thank you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K