Still confused about the dx notation

  • Thread starter jaydnul
  • Start date
  • #1
516
11
So dx means an infinitesimally small change in x. Why is the slope written [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex] instead of [itex]\frac{f(x)}{dx}[/itex] since you are only making the x component infinitely small?

When you take the integral you do [itex]∫f(x)dx[/itex] not [itex]∫dy*dx[/itex]
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
SteamKing
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
12,796
1,668
f(x) is the value of function f at a particular value x. The slope of a line is defined as the rise, which is the change in f, divided by the run, which is the change in x, or dx in the limit.

Remember, teh derivative is defined as limit as h --> 0 of [f(x+h) - f(x)]/h. As h approaches 0 it becomes dxin differential notation, while [f(x+h)-f(x)] becomes dy, the change in the value of the function.

Conversely, when you integrate a function f, you are adding up the area of a series of strips which are f(x) tall by dx wide. The integral of dy*dx makes no sense and it appears you are confusing the concept of the derivative with the concept of the integral, and vice versa.
 
  • #3
395
14
In real analysis (calculus) there is no such thing as an infinitesimal, period. dx is NOT an "infinitesimal", as a matter of fact dx by itself doesn't make sense. Anything you see in calculus where you treat dx as something to be moved around, you are seeing an abuse of notation.
 
  • #5
611
23
In real analysis (calculus) there is no such thing as an infinitesimal, period. dx is NOT an "infinitesimal", as a matter of fact dx by itself doesn't make sense. Anything you see in calculus where you treat dx as something to be moved around, you are seeing an abuse of notation.
OP, please disregard this post.

There are two arguably "best" rigorous notions of the differential. The first, as an infinitesimal, is more intuitive (to some), but less useful. The second is, in my personal opinion, far superior and intuitive, but much more mathematically complicated.

Additionally, I find the infinitesimal approach to be less motivated than worth using. It's really a matter of preference for you at this point.
 
  • #6
395
14
Last edited:
  • #7
516
11
OP, please disregard this post.

There are two arguably "best" rigorous notions of the differential. The first, as an infinitesimal, is more intuitive (to some), but less useful. The second is, in my personal opinion, far superior and intuitive, but much more mathematically complicated.

Additionally, I find the infinitesimal approach to be less motivated than worth using. It's really a matter of preference for you at this point.
Well don't keep me in suspense! :)

What's the second notion that is far superior and intuitive?
 
  • #8
611
23
Well don't keep me in suspense! :)

What's the second notion that is far superior and intuitive?
...is too complicated for us to really go into too much depth with you now.

For differentiable manifolds ##M## and ##N## and a differentiable map ##f:M\to N##, the differential ##df## defines at each point ##p\in M## a linear mapping ##df_p:T_pM\to T_{f(p)}N##.

Differential forms generalize the concept of a differential of a scalar function.

It only gets more complicated from there. One of the best motivations for it is that we can put most integration theorems from analysis into the form $$\int\limits_{\Omega}d\alpha=\int\limits_{\partial\Omega}\alpha.$$

To really understand these things, it's best to leave them alone until college. If you want an example, suppose we have ##f:\mathbb{R}\to\mathbb{R}##. Then, we have, for ##x,v\in\mathbb{R}##, ##df_x(v)=f'(x)v##.
 

Related Threads on Still confused about the dx notation

  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
16K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
7K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
855
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
3K
Top