• Caveman@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    9
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 day ago

    The thing is that it’s legit a fraction and d/dx actually explains what’s going on under the hood. People interact with it as an operator because it’s mostly looking up common derivatives and using the properties.

    Take for example f(x) dx to mean "the sum (∫) of supersmall sections of x (dx) multiplied by the value of x at that point ( f(x) ). This is why there’s dx at the end of all integrals.

    The same way you can say that the slope at x is tiny f(x) divided by tiny x or d*f(x) / dx or more traditionally (d/dx) * f(x).

      • jsomae@lemmy.ml
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        2
        ·
        1 day ago

        it’s legit a fraction, just the numerator and denominator aren’t numbers.

          • jsomae@lemmy.ml
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            7
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            24 hours ago

            try this on – Yes 👎

            It’s a fraction of two infinitesimals. Infinitesimals aren’t numbers, however, they have their own algebra and can be manipulated algebraically. It so happens that a fraction of two infinitesimals behaves as a derivative.

            • Kogasa@programming.dev
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              22 hours ago

              Ok, but no. Infinitesimal-based foundations for calculus aren’t standard and if you try to make this work with differential forms you’ll get a convoluted mess that is far less elegant than the actual definitions. It’s just not founded on actual math. It’s hard for me to argue this with you because it comes down to simply not knowing the definition of a basic concept or having the necessary context to understand why that definition is used instead of others…

              • jsomae@lemmy.ml
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                2
                ·
                21 hours ago

                Why would you assume I don’t have the context? I have a degree in math. I could be wrong about this, I’m open-minded. By all means, please explain how infinitesimals don’t have a consistent algebra.

                • Kogasa@programming.dev
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  2
                  arrow-down
                  1
                  ·
                  20 hours ago
                  1. I also have a masters in math and completed all coursework for a PhD. Infinitesimals never came up because they’re not part of standard foundations for analysis. I’d be shocked if they were addressed in any formal capacity in your curriculum, because why would they be? It can be useful to think in terms of infinitesimals for intuition but you should know the difference between intuition and formalism.

                  2. I didn’t say “infinitesimals don’t have a consistent algebra.” I’m familiar with NSA and other systems admitting infinitesimal-like objects. I said they’re not standard. They aren’t.

                  3. If you want to use differential forms to define 1D calculus, rather than a NSA/infinitesimal approach, you’ll eventually realize some of your definitions are circular, since differential forms themselves are defined with an implicit understanding of basic calculus. You can get around this circular dependence but only by introducing new definitions that are ultimately less elegant than the standard limit-based ones.