oliverkahn said:
But this doesn't look analogous to the definition of one dimensional derivative.
If the position of a particle is given by ## x = f(t)##, an unconventional way to think of velocity is to think of it as a density.
The "average amount of position" of the particle in the interval from ##t## to ## t + \triangle t## can be estimated by ##f(t + \triangle t) - f(t)##. So the average density of position per unit time is ##\frac{f(t + \triangle t) - f(t)}{\triangle t}## and the position density per unit time
at time ##t## is ##\lim_{\triangle t \rightarrow 0} \frac{f(t + \triangle t) - f(t)}{\triangle t}##
We could express the concept of position density per unit time by writing it as ##\lim_{\triangle t \rightarrow 0} \frac{ P(t)_{av}}{\triangle t}## where ##P(t)_{av}## is the average amount of position in the interval from ##t## to ##t + \triangle t##.
Thinking of what you call a "dimensional derivative" in this way makes it clear that there is a general concept for derivatives that follows the pattern: density of such-and-such per unit so-and-so. So we can have derivatives that represent heat per unit volume, or force per unit area, etc.
We can write densities using notation like like ##\frac{ \triangle g}{\triangle A}##. These expressions show concepts, but they are not of practical use unless we know
where ##g## and ##A## are - with respect to space or time or whatever coordinates are relevant. To include the information about the location of ##g## we need express ##g## as a function of those coordinates.
##\displaystyle \lim_{\Delta V \to 0} \frac{\Delta q}{\Delta V}=\lim_{\Delta V \to 0} \frac{q(V+\Delta V)-q(V)}{\Delta V}##
Infinitely many volumes can be constructed from origin to each point ## P\in \mathbb{R^3}##.
And the limit you mention doesn't exist unless all reasonable ways of constructing the finite volumes give the same result as the volumes approach zero. By "reasonable", I mean that the method of computing ## \triangle q## must give a good approximation of the amount of ##q## in the volumes that are used.
Suppose ##A## is an area. To relate the area density of ##g## to the partial derivatives of ##g## , we need to convince ourselves that the expression ##\frac{ (g(x + \triangle x,y) - g(x,y)}{\triangle x} \frac{ (g(x,y+\triangle y) - g(x,y))}{\triangle y} ## is a plausible approximation (in cartesian coordinates) for the for the average density of ##g## per unit area near the point ##(x,y)##. Is it reasonable that an area density can be approximated by the product of two linear densities? It sounds reasonable, but we need to think of a convincing example or a more detailed intuitive argument.