CaptainJames
- 18
- 0
What's the difference between dx times dy and a point? Having trouble thinking about this... it's been hurting my head, any help would be greatly appreciated.
What's the Difference Between dx*dy and a Point?
- Context: Undergrad
- Thread starter CaptainJames
- Start date
-
- Tags
- Integration
Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
10 replies · 2K views
- 42,895
- 983
What is the context of the question? "dx times dy" might be the "differential of area". It is, in any case, a differential which doesn't have anything to do with a point.
The question seems to me to be a lot like asking "What is the difference between the number 5 and a point?"
The question seems to me to be a lot like asking "What is the difference between the number 5 and a point?"
CaptainJames
- 18
- 0
No, I mean an infinitely small change in the x direction times an infinitely small change in the y direction.
fourier jr
- 764
- 13
it would be an infinitely small change in the area enclosed by a curve(s) in a plane. a point is just a point.
- 2,570
- 2
A point is a geometrical object. dx dy is an algebraic object.
CaptainJames
- 18
- 0
Hmm, could someone define a point for me... i think the problem is that I define a point as an indivisible amount of space, which is probably wrong, any help?
- 10,165
- 138
A point is an element of a particular vector space (or, roughly, number system), for example R2
Rach3
A point is an abstraction invented by Euclid.
dx*dy cannot be "visualized" as if it were a geometric object. Instead, visualize what one does with it, in context. Doing 2d integrals? Visualize finite partitions of a region (perhaps a grid of widths ΔxΔy), their Riemann sums under a function f, and the limiting behavior of all that. dx*dy is an informal way of saying we're looking at some limiting behavior, of finite Δx*Δy. Infinitesimals don't exist on their own - they exist with reference to some limiting process we're describing. Thus dx*dy has more mathematical meaning then just the 'point' at which it is located.
dx*dy cannot be "visualized" as if it were a geometric object. Instead, visualize what one does with it, in context. Doing 2d integrals? Visualize finite partitions of a region (perhaps a grid of widths ΔxΔy), their Riemann sums under a function f, and the limiting behavior of all that. dx*dy is an informal way of saying we're looking at some limiting behavior, of finite Δx*Δy. Infinitesimals don't exist on their own - they exist with reference to some limiting process we're describing. Thus dx*dy has more mathematical meaning then just the 'point' at which it is located.
CaptainJames
- 18
- 0
I see my problem, I was trying to apply my world to mathematics too readily, thanks for the help everyone.
Robokapp
- 218
- 0
I guess a point can be considered a geometric shape with n sides and area, perimeter and volume =0 like a triangle with one null angle...
Gagle The Terrible
- 39
- 0
LeBesgue's definition of a "point" is, as far as I am concerned, the best
conceptualisation of this abstract object. The downside is that it requires a
certain mathematical background. He stills manages to make the difference between
the differential area dx*dy and a point quite clear though.
conceptualisation of this abstract object. The downside is that it requires a
certain mathematical background. He stills manages to make the difference between
the differential area dx*dy and a point quite clear though.
Last edited: