Still confused about the dx notation

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter jaydnul
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Confused Dx Notation
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the notation and conceptual understanding of "dx" in calculus, particularly in relation to derivatives and integrals. Participants explore the implications of treating "dx" as an infinitesimal and the validity of different approaches to differentials in real analysis.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants assert that "dx" represents an infinitesimally small change in x, questioning why the slope is expressed as \(\frac{dy}{dx}\) instead of \(\frac{f(x)}{dx}\).
  • Others explain that the slope is defined as the change in the function value (dy) divided by the change in x (dx), emphasizing the limit definition of the derivative.
  • Some participants argue against the existence of infinitesimals in real analysis, stating that "dx" does not make sense on its own and that treating it as such is an abuse of notation.
  • A participant mentions two rigorous notions of the differential, with one being more intuitive but less useful, while the other is described as superior yet more complex.
  • There is a suggestion that the infinitesimal approach may be less motivated and that preferences for different approaches vary among individuals.
  • One participant introduces the concept of differential forms and their relation to differentiable manifolds, indicating that this topic is complex and may be better suited for advanced study.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express multiple competing views regarding the interpretation of "dx" and the validity of infinitesimals in calculus. The discussion remains unresolved, with no consensus on the best approach to understanding differentials.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include varying definitions of differentials, the dependence on the framework of analysis being discussed, and the complexity of advanced concepts like differential forms and manifolds.

jaydnul
Messages
558
Reaction score
15
So dx means an infinitesimally small change in x. Why is the slope written \frac{dy}{dx} instead of \frac{f(x)}{dx} since you are only making the x component infinitely small?

When you take the integral you do ∫f(x)dx not ∫dy*dx
 
Physics news on Phys.org
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, the 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.
 
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.
 
johnqwertyful said:
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.
 
WannabeNewton said:

That's why I said in real analysis/calculus. This is not true always, but within a standard analysis, what he is doing now, there are no infinitesimals.

Edit, "abuse of notation" is not necessarily a bad thing. In my physics classes, I'm not going to try to do things 100% rigorously and I abuse notation all the time.
 
Last edited:
Mandelbroth said:
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?
 
Jd0g33 said:
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##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
4K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K