- #1
iScience
- 466
- 5
|1-0.[itex]\bar{9}[/itex]|=dx?
Is Understanding Differential Notation Necessary for Learning Advanced Math?
- Thread starter iScience
- Start date
In summary, understanding differential notation is essential for learning advanced math. This mathematical notation is used to represent the relationship between variables and their rates of change, allowing for the analysis and manipulation of complex equations. Without a solid understanding of differential notation, it would be challenging to comprehend and solve higher-level mathematical problems and concepts, such as derivatives, integrals, and differential equations. Therefore, mastering this notation is crucial for success in advanced math and related fields.
- #2
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
- 5,844
- 552
No. First of all ##0.\bar{9} = 1##. Secondly, as you were told in the other thread, ##dx## is not a real number.
- #3
- 22,183
- 3,324
No. We have that ##1=0.999...##. So ##|1-0.999...|=0##. On the other hand, ##dx## is not a real number.
- #4
Infrared
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 1,083
- 657
See https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507002 for a good explanation of why ##0.999...=1##
Last edited by a moderator:
- #5
iScience
- 466
- 5
WannabeNewton said:
how does 0.999...=1?... ...how?...
just to be sure, I am not rounding..
that's like saying i have a piece wise function.. f(x)={2x , 0<x<5}
{3 , x=5 }
{2x , 5<x<∞}
the statement 4.999999...=5 is NOT even saying as x approaches 5... no. This is like saying at 4.999999... wer're already AT 5.
how does this make sense??
and if 4.99999... = 5 , then this must also be true 5.00000000...00001 = 5.
okay so.. now we have three "fives" on the number line... let's work our way outward shall we
4.999...[itex]\equiv[/itex]5 so now.. 4.999...9998 is also 5.. and 4.999...9997 is also 5...
5-[itex]\Sigma[/itex]dxi=5 no matter what the value of i is.. even as it approaches ∞ this is still five.
and now we have an infinite number of fives on the number line. the implications do not make sense to me.
if i am wrong with my analysis, i assume i am wrong from the point when i start to work my way outward after the point where 4.999... is said to be equal to five..
Last edited:
- #6
pwsnafu
Science Advisor
- 1,082
- 85
- #7
- 22,183
- 3,324
HS-Scientist said:
That is actually the second part of the FAQ, so be sure to read the first part as well: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507001
Last edited by a moderator:
- #8
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
- 5,844
- 552
You really have to stop treating ##dx## like it's some kind of number. It's fine for hand wavy arguments in subpar physics books but not for what you're interested in here.
- #9
- 22,183
- 3,324
If you want to be rigorous about it, then for any function ##f:\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}##, you can define
[tex]df:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}: (p,h)\rightarrow f^\prime(p) h[/tex]
In particular, we have that
[tex]dx:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}: (p,h)\rightarrow h[/tex]
The main reason for this definition is to make the following true:
[tex]df = \frac{df}{dx} dx[/tex]
If you want to do physics, then infinitesimals come in very handy. Those infinitesimals are made rigorous by the hyperreal and surreal number system. But they are not denoted as ##dx##.
In short: you need to stop treating ##dx## as a number, or even worse: as a real number. It isn't, and it's very confusing.
[tex]df:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}: (p,h)\rightarrow f^\prime(p) h[/tex]
In particular, we have that
[tex]dx:\mathbb{R}\times\mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R}: (p,h)\rightarrow h[/tex]
The main reason for this definition is to make the following true:
[tex]df = \frac{df}{dx} dx[/tex]
If you want to do physics, then infinitesimals come in very handy. Those infinitesimals are made rigorous by the hyperreal and surreal number system. But they are not denoted as ##dx##.
In short: you need to stop treating ##dx## as a number, or even worse: as a real number. It isn't, and it's very confusing.
- #10
mathsciguy
- 134
- 1
About 0.999...=1, is representing it as a geometric infinite series a valid proof?
- #11
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 42,988
- 981
Yes, it is probably the simplest strictly valid proof.
0.9999...= .9+ .09+ .009+ .0009+ ...= .9(1)+ .9(.1)+ .9(.01)+ .9(.001)+ ...= .9(1)+ .9(.1)+ .9(.1^2)+ .9(.1^3)+ ...
That is a greometric series of the form [itex]\sum ar^n[/itex] with a= .9, r= .1. A geometric series with |r|< 1 (which is the case here: |r|= .1< 1) converges to a/(1- r).
Here, a/(1- r)= .9/(1- .1)= .9/.9= 1.
0.9999...= .9+ .09+ .009+ .0009+ ...= .9(1)+ .9(.1)+ .9(.01)+ .9(.001)+ ...= .9(1)+ .9(.1)+ .9(.1^2)+ .9(.1^3)+ ...
That is a greometric series of the form [itex]\sum ar^n[/itex] with a= .9, r= .1. A geometric series with |r|< 1 (which is the case here: |r|= .1< 1) converges to a/(1- r).
Here, a/(1- r)= .9/(1- .1)= .9/.9= 1.
- #12
iScience
- 466
- 5
guys what level of math are you all in? ie what's the highest math courses you've taken? i just finished diff eq and can't wait to get to where you guys are at.. things are so confusing for me right now :'(
- #13
WannabeNewton
Science Advisor
- 5,844
- 552
Don't worry, it will all come in due time. Most of the people answering you are doing their PhDs/masters or already have their PhDs so don't fret, you'll learn it all in sooner or later.iScience said:
- #14
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 42,988
- 981
Yes, at PhD level, but the "geometric series" proof that 0.999...= 1 is one that I learned in PreCalculus.
- #15
Mandelbroth
- 611
- 24
I think that ##|1-0.\bar{9}|=0##, which admittedly IS close to 0 if you want to think about it that way, seeing as the distance between the two is 0. 
For now, it's best to treat ##dx## and ##df## as variable holders for notation. Later, in differential geometry, you'll be introduced to the concept of the "exterior derivative," which extends the idea of the differential to a meaningful, mathematically rigorous context. For now, though, just treat it as notation.
It's not about your level of education in school. It's about how much you study by yourself. You can get a lot further by self study than you can by a formal college education, in my opinion.
For now, it's best to treat ##dx## and ##df## as variable holders for notation. Later, in differential geometry, you'll be introduced to the concept of the "exterior derivative," which extends the idea of the differential to a meaningful, mathematically rigorous context. For now, though, just treat it as notation.
Whereas you and micro seem to do better than most of us without a degree.WannabeNewton said:
It's not about your level of education in school. It's about how much you study by yourself. You can get a lot further by self study than you can by a formal college education, in my opinion.
FAQ: Is Understanding Differential Notation Necessary for Learning Advanced Math?
What does it mean for a statement to be "valid"?
A statement is considered valid if it follows the rules of logic and can be proven to be true based on those rules.
How can you determine if a statement is valid?
To determine if a statement is valid, you must analyze the logical structure of the statement and ensure that it follows the principles of validity, such as the law of non-contradiction and the law of excluded middle.
Can a statement be valid but not true?
Yes, a statement can be logically valid but not necessarily true. This means that the statement follows the rules of logic, but the content of the statement may not be accurate or supported by evidence.
What is the difference between a valid and sound statement?
A valid statement is one that follows the rules of logic, while a sound statement is both valid and true. In other words, a sound statement has a logical structure that is valid and its content is also supported by evidence or proof.
Can a statement be valid in one context but not in another?
Yes, a statement's validity can be dependent on the context in which it is used. A statement may be valid in one logical system but not in another, or it may be valid in one situation but not in another due to different premises or assumptions.