What is the concept of dx in calculus?

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the meaning of "dx" in calculus, with some participants asserting it represents an infinitesimal change in x, while others argue that it lacks meaning in standard analysis. There is a debate about whether viewing dx as a notation without meaning undermines the foundations of physical sciences, with some suggesting that it is more useful to consider dx as a finite small increment. The conversation also touches on the relationship between differentials and limits, emphasizing that while dx can be seen as a small change, it must be understood within the context of differentiability and continuity. The use of nonstandard analysis and differential forms is mentioned as a way to rigorously define infinitesimals, but the practical application of dx in physics remains a point of contention. Overall, the discussion highlights the complexity and varying interpretations of dx in both mathematical and physical contexts.
  • #31
Hurkyl said:
Infinitessimal has a precise definition -- usually it's something like:

x is infinitessimal if the size of x is smaller than 1/n for every positive integer n

The description you have doesn't really fit with how mathematicians use the term "infinitessimal". Among other things, in the real number system, there is only one infintiessimal, and it's called "zero".

Other number systems have infinitesimal objects that really aren't all that mysterious. Other algebraic structures capture the notion too -- such as the notions of "differential form" and "tangent vector".

In your definition, I think you want to include a condition that x is greater than zero. Otherwise -1 would be considered infinitesimal. The way the term is normally used, 0 is also not considered infinitesimal. Non-standard analysis http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-standard_analysis has infinitesimals that fit this definition. There is a very nice freshman calc book available online that does calculus using infinitesimals: http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
bcrowell said:
In your definition, I think you want to include a condition that x is greater than zero.
"Size". In the case of elements an ordered field, that would mean absolute value. I suppose I should have been more explicit, though.

The way the term is normally used, 0 is also not considered infinitesimal.
Huh. I've only seen the opposite convention. e.g. Keisler's book:
Then the only real number that is infinitesimal is zero.​
It's good to know there are people who use the opposite convention.




At least, I only remember seeing the opposite convention. I can easily imagine having seen the other, but chalked it up to the tendency for people to (IMO) gratuitously exclude degenerate cases from definitions, and so didn't take it all that seriously.
 
  • #33
Hurkyl said:
Huh. I've only seen the opposite convention. e.g. Keisler's book:
Then the only real number that is infinitesimal is zero.​
It's good to know there are people who use the opposite convention.

Or maybe I was just wrong :-)
 
  • #34
Whoopes I made a typo

I previously said 0 > dx < 1

but i meant

0 < dx < 1

I blame it on the cat tibels
 

Similar threads

Replies
24
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K