B Where Did My Neglect of High-Order Terms Go Wrong in Integral Sums?

Mike_bb
Messages
179
Reaction score
19
Hello.

As is known, we can neglect high-order term in expression ##f(x+dx)-f(x)##. For ##y=x^2##: ##dy=2xdx+dx^2##, ##dy=2xdx##.

I read that infinitesimals have property: ##dx+dx^2=dx##

I tried to neglect high-order terms in integral sum (##dx^2## and ##4dx^2## and so on) and I obtained wrong result in the end.

IMG_20220727_0001.jpg


Where is my mistake?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Mike_bb said:
Hello.

As is known, we can neglect high-order term in expression ##f(x+dx)-f(x)##. For ##y=x^2##: ##dy=2xdx+dx^2##, ##dy=2xdx##.

I read that infinitesimals have property: ##dx+dx^2=dx##

I tried to neglect high-order terms in integral sum (##dx^2## and ##4dx^2## and so on) and I obtained wrong result in the end.

View attachment 304873

Where is my mistake?

Thanks.
I don't really understand what you've done. The ##dx## in an integral isn't an infinitesimal.

In fact, to be precise, there is no such thing as an "infinitesimal" in standard calculus. Although, there is the concept of the "differential" ##dx##.

The ##dx## in the integral is not a differential either, but a notation specific to integration.
 
PeroK said:
I don't really understand what you've done. The ##dx## in an integral isn't an infinitesimal.

In fact, to be precise, there is no such thing as an "infinitesimal" in standard calculus. Although, there is the concept of the "differential" ##dx##.

The ##dx## in the integral is not a differential either, but a notation specific to integration.
I read "A treatise on infinitesimal calculus" Bartholomew Price. Integral sum, for ##2xdx##:

1.jpg
 
Okay. Infinitesimal calculus is not something I know anything about, I'm sorry to say!
 
@Mike_bb, what you're doing is evaluating the definite integral using a Riemann sum.
In post 1 you said this:
Mike_bb said:
For ##y = x^2, dy = 2xdx + dx^2, dy = 2xdx##
This doesn't make any sense to me. If the function is defined by the formula ##y = f(x) = x^2##, then by definition, the differential of f (df) or differential of y (dy) is given by ##dy = \frac{df}{dx} dx = 2xdx##. I don't see where you're getting the ##dx^2## term from.

In evaluating the def. integral ##\int_{x_0}^{x_n} x^2 dx##, the author of the book you're working from is using a Riemann sum to evaluate the integral. BTW, from the language used, my guess is that this is a very old textbook (maybe over 100 years old!). I would advise getting something a bit more modern and that uses illustrations.

The author's use of dx in the Riemann sum is not at all the way things are usually done these days. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riemann_sum for a more modern explanation.

In the Riemann sum, the interval ##[x_0, x_n}## is divided into subintervals of equal length. This is usually written as ##\Delta x = \frac{x_n - x_0} n## and not as dx.

In each subinterval, an estimate is calculated of the area under the curve, within that subinterval, and then all n subintervals are added to get the total. This is easier to follow from a drawing, several of which are shown with examples in the wiki article I linked to.
 
For original Zeta function, ζ(s)=1+1/2^s+1/3^s+1/4^s+... =1+e^(-slog2)+e^(-slog3)+e^(-slog4)+... , Re(s)>1 Riemann extended the Zeta function to the region where s≠1 using analytical extension. New Zeta function is in the form of contour integration, which appears simple but is actually more inconvenient to analyze than the original Zeta function. The original Zeta function already contains all the information about the distribution of prime numbers. So we only handle with original Zeta...
Back
Top