Understanding Function Notation in Higher Level Mathematics

  • Thread starter Thread starter Artimodes
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function Notation
Click For Summary
Understanding function notation in higher-level mathematics can be challenging, especially when transitioning from calculus to engineering math. The discussion highlights confusion around representing functions, particularly in the context of Newton's Second Law and its relation to force, velocity, and time. It clarifies that while a function like f(x,y) represents a three-dimensional surface, the graph itself is two-dimensional within a three-dimensional space. Additionally, it emphasizes that force can be viewed as a function of multiple variables, such as time and velocity. This nuanced understanding of dimensions in function notation is essential for grasping advanced mathematical concepts.
Artimodes
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
Hello everyone,

I'm a newcomer to this forum! I've been having particular difficulty lately with understanding function notation in higher level mathematics. I felt like it was a general post so I posted in the general math section. I've finished calculus 3 and am going to take engineering math (basically ODE and applications) next spring.

It is my understanding that for a three dimensional function, for example an elliptic paraboloid, it's written like:

f(x,y)= z =x2+y2

However, after looking at Paul's Online Notes on ODE here, he starts to describe Newton's Second Law as a differential equation. I knew that, but his notation threw me off:

eq0006MP.gif


Is force in this case a three dimensional function, due to force being a function of the derivative of velocity while velocity is a function of time? Just confused.

Thanks for any help
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I don't know if it is helpful to refer to the function as being 3-dimensional , or functions

being n-dimensional. Strictly speaking, the graph is 2-dimensional, but it lives

in 3-dimensional space. In the sense of F(t,v) , you can say that F depends on two

parameters, and, if you were to graph force using axes for t,v the (two-dimensional)

graph would live in 3-D.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
13K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 43 ·
2
Replies
43
Views
8K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
41
Views
6K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
5K