[disclaimer: I've studied a lot of logic but never been good at analysis, so that's the angle I'm coming from below]
in my attempt to find a precise version of the 'definitions' usually given when first introducing leibniz notation in single or multivariable calculus or analysis, wherein there is no appeal to differentials or infinitesimals, I've discovered that I'm confused about a few interellated low-level issues around formalization and notation, etc. I don't know which questions are the more basic ones here, so I'll just ask them as go along explaining what I think I do understand about proposed formal defintions of the sort in question.
I'm concerned with both the dy/dx notation and the 'del y/del x' notation for partial derivatives, but just the real-valued case.
Since I suspect that my confusions stem from use-mention confusions, and the confusion of functions, variables, and their values, I will use, and assume familiarity with lambda notation, metavariables, and quasi-quotation throughout. Where not stated, ⌜λx.φ⌝ refers to the function on the largest real domain on which φ is a real number. Assume only definitions for real variables are sought after below.
Anyway, on with the definitions:
These short articles by the author Thurston (the first five results) all give roughly the same formal definition of leibniz notation:
http://scholar.google.ca/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&q=thurston+leibniz
whereas the top results for this search are by the author Harrison, and each give one of a few slight variants on a different definition:
here is my understanding of their definitions:
HARRISON:
⌜dφ/dψ⌝ is a shorthand for ⌜D(λψ.φ)(ψ)⌝ i.e.
"dy/dx" stands for "D(λx.y)(x)"
This means that:
ψ must be a variable of the underlying logic (and it has a free and a bound occurence here) and
φ must be a string such that ⌜∀x, φ = f(x)⌝ is true for some function f:S→R where S⊆R.
Q1. does anyone have a simpler way to state the restriction on φ?
Q1.1 what is the proper name for the sort of string φ must be?
THURSTON:
⌜dφ/dψ⌝ is a shorthand for ⌜ψ'/φ'⌝ i.e.
"dy/dx" is short for "y'/x'"
This means that φ and ψ must be names of functions from the reals to the reals.
Q1.2 Are there other formal definitions in the literature I should compare to these? I haven't found any yet...
Harrison's defintion does not return a value because a free variable is uninstntiated, in the same sense in which wffs which are not sentences do not return a truth value. Thurston's version, however returns a function.
For instance,
df/dx = f'(x) for harrison,
df/dx = f' for thurston
More concretely
d(x²+x)/dx =
2x+1 for harrison
λx.2x+1 for thurston
Q2 is the value '2x+1' which contains a free variable being returned, or are we implicitly quantifying over x, or, let's call it 'ξ' for the purposes of quasi quotation, and saying: ∀ξ, ⌜2ξ+1⌝ refers to (not 'is') the value returned?
However, consider the following 'typical' calculus problem:
"
y = f(x)
x = g(u)
g(x) = x³ - 7
find df/dx
"
Thurston gets us df/dx = λx.1/(3x²)
This is undefined on harison's approach, since x is not a variable of the logic, but the name of a function.
Q3 should I be considering the possibility that the logic allows for variables ranging over functions?
And if we pretended that it was we'd still get df/dx = D(λx.f)(x) but this is mal-formed since λx needs something like 'f(x)' rather than 'f' as input.
And if we added a case to harrison's definition to append '(x)' or the like when it's missing, we'd still get df/dx = 1, which is not equal to the result we got with thurston's definition--but more strikingly, the function we evaluated to get 1 was, unike the f' vs f'(x) case above, not even the same function as was returned by thurston's definition.
Q4 What should I conclude from the fact that these definitions diverge in this manner?
Now consider:
"
y = f(x)
f(x) = x⁹
find dy/dx
"
On harrison's account, we could view y as a metavariable, so that f(x) is placed substitutionally into the defining string, but I have a feeling that is not the right way to understand it. However, if y is merely a variable of the logic, it is a free variable in the result, and we end up with one free variable too many..
On thurston's account, y must be the name of a function, but "y = f(x)" sets y equal to an expression with a free variable, not equal to the name of a function
Q5 should i view statements like "y=f(x)" as involving a supressed "(x)" and "∀" so that we get "∀x,y(x)=f(x)" ? Or should I see y as a metavariable? Or, should I imagine the logic extended to allow some new syntactic category of 'dependent' variables, while thinking of the usual variables in the logic as 'independent' variables--i.e. those whose value does not depend on others? I think I am very confused about what happends when one variable depends on another.
Q6 On a related note, I saw a passage recently that spoke in terms like "x(u) is the inverse function of u(x)"--how should this be understood more precisely? I've come to discover that I don't understand expressions of this sort at all!
Q7 Does either of these defintions clearly capture 'practice' better than another?
Q8 How should similar attempts be made for the 'del' notation for patial derivatives?
Q9 Can someone give me an example of where d/dx and del/delx return different values on the same input? If I'm not mistaken, in some formalizations this never happens, and in other formalizations it does--I think harrison's would not allow for this since it just returns an 'expression' rather than one of the various functions that can be formed by an expression when you apply a lambda operator to it.
I started also trying to read this article on revising patial derivative notation:
[I've hit my link limit as I'm new here, but google "revised notation for partial derivatives" (with quotes). It's by WC Hassenpflug]
but I got stuck on the sentence:
"If we have a function u = f(x,y) and the transformation y=g(x∩) is made, then it is not clear whether del u / dx means del u / dx |y or del y / dx | n"
Can someone explain that one to me?
Q10 This all bears some superficial similarity to the relationship between so-called 'random variables', which are actually functions, and what are called 'variables' in the underlying logic--this has also confused me, and I see many operations done in text on random variables where the operators have only been defined for values in the random variable's domain, and not on functions. Can anyone comment on this? I would be nice if I could dismiss two long-standing confusions with one stone :p
No comments:
Post a Comment