Talk:Leibniz's notation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

[edit] Needs work

This article needs a lot of work. The second paragraph (not the line, the paragraph) is nearly incoherent. The closing statement describing units merely hints at what I wanted to know. Maybe it's somewhere else; in that case, a link will be needed.

-Malakai

Does this look better now? Fresheneesz 00:17, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

"(One mathematician, Jerome Keisler, has gone so far as to write a first-year-calculus textbook according to Robinson's point of view.)" Why don't you tell us the name of the textbook, given that you tell us it exists? GangofOne 00:22, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

GIYF: http://www.math.wisc.edu/~keisler/calc.html TomJF 00:37, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

In the absence of any talk here, I have implemented the proposed merger by moving the content of Leibniz's notation for differentiation into this article. A while ago, I also adapted the notation here for coherence with that article. There is now a new (not fully developed) article at Notation for differentiation: the material here should ultimately inform this new article. I have made a similar move for the Newton's notation articles, where the issues are more straightforward, because Newton's notations for integration are not developed in wikipedia. Geometry guy 19:00, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Good job. I have a question about this odd looking thing:
\frac{\mathrm{d} \Bigl(\frac{\mathrm{d} \left( \frac{\mathrm{d} \left(f(x)\right)} {\mathrm{d}x}\right)} {\mathrm{d}x}\Bigr)} {\mathrm{d}x}
Did Leibniz always write the function being differentiated on top of the line, instead of the nicer looking
\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigl(\frac{\mathrm{d}}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigl(\frac{\mathrm{d}f(x)}{\mathrm{d}x}\Bigr)\Bigr)? –Pomte 23:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I suspect that the notation you suggest was not current in the 17th century, since it presumes the (later) idea of d/dx as an operator, and it was probably for precisely this reason that a more concise form was needed for multiple derivatives. However, I'm not an expert of 17th century notation, and they probably had a different way to write multiple fractions. Anyway, I would be happy if you would incorporate the notation you propose as an addition (but not a replacement) to the text, since it certainly makes sense, and is certainly now used. It could comfortably be inserted into the explanation for the origin of the d^ny/dx^n notation. Geometry guy 23:21, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../l/e/i/Talk%7ELeibniz%27s_notation_4c38.html"