Not signed in (Sign In)

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Site Tag Cloud

2-category 2-category-theory abelian-categories adjoint algebra algebraic algebraic-geometry algebraic-topology analysis analytic-geometry arithmetic arithmetic-geometry book bundles calculus categorical categories category category-theory chern-weil-theory cohesion cohesive-homotopy-type-theory cohomology colimits combinatorics complex complex-geometry computable-mathematics computer-science constructive cosmology deformation-theory descent diagrams differential differential-cohomology differential-equations differential-geometry digraphs duality elliptic-cohomology enriched fibration foundation foundations functional-analysis functor galois-theory gauge-theory gebra geometric-quantization geometry graph graphs gravity grothendieck group group-theory harmonic-analysis higher higher-algebra higher-category-theory higher-differential-geometry higher-geometry higher-lie-theory higher-topos-theory homological homological-algebra homotopy homotopy-theory homotopy-type-theory index-theory integration integration-theory k-theory lie-theory limits linear linear-algebra locale localization logic mathematics measure-theory modal modal-logic model model-category-theory monad monads monoidal monoidal-category-theory morphism motives motivic-cohomology nlab noncommutative noncommutative-geometry number-theory of operads operator operator-algebra order-theory pages pasting philosophy physics planar pro-object probability probability-theory quantization quantum quantum-field quantum-field-theory quantum-mechanics quantum-physics quantum-theory question representation representation-theory riemannian-geometry scheme schemes set set-theory sheaf simplicial space spin-geometry stable-homotopy-theory stack string string-theory superalgebra supergeometry svg symplectic-geometry synthetic-differential-geometry terminology theory topology topos topos-theory tqft type type-theory universal variational-calculus

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorAndrew Stacey
    • CommentTimeApr 3rd 2011

    Toby has just commented on an answer of mine to an old question on MO about teaching derivatives (link is to my answer). A particular phrase in my answer seems to have caused a bit of … interest. I said:

    Many students will just want the rules. But if the students refuse to learn, that’s their problem. My job is to provide them with an environment in which they can learn. Of course, I should ensure that what they are trying to learn is within their grasp, but they have to choose to grasp it. So I’m not going to give them a full exposition on the deep issues involving the ZF axioms if all I want is for them to have a vague idea of a “set” and a “function”, but I am going to ensure that what I say is true (or at the least is clearly flagged as a convenient lie).

    Toby’s comment was:

    But the question is not whether the students refuse to learn but whether the environment that we are providing is good. Explaining an intuitive concept with a complicated definition is not conducive to that good environment.

    I’m not sure whether or not the other comments are relevant.

    This is a discussion I’d love to have. But the comment threads at MO are not well-designed for having such discussions. So since Toby is often here, I’m taking this opportunity to transfer it over here. This may not work, we’ll see.

    So first, I’d like to ask Toby to expand a bit on his comment as I’m not clear as to the point being made. I could read that comment in such a way that it agrees completely with my quoted paragraph. But I may be misreading it.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 4th 2011

    My comment wasn’t a direct response to your answer but to your immediately preceding comment, which in turn was a response to a comment by JBL, which was a response to the part of your answer that you highlighted above. (In particular, by ‘the question’ I meant the question implicitly raised by JPL rather than one implicity raised by you or by the M.O questioner.) On the other hand, there is a larger context which I was also thinking about in my comment, which was the discussion of how best to introduce the concept of the derivative in an introductory calculus class. (So anybody reading this on the nForum should read at least Andrew’s answer at M.O and all of its comments, and probably also the original question and some of the responses, as comments and answers, to that.)

    I teach at a community college to students who, almost universally, take my classes because they are required for a non-mathematical programme. Many (but by no means all) of them come to the class thoroughly frustrated with school ‘math’. To make things worse, I’m faced with a large college-mandated curriculum to cover in too short a time for some of these students; I haven’t yet figured out how to fit in any actual mathematics. But I want to teach them something that will actually be useful to them. This does not include (a) precise definitions, but it does include (b) hand-wavy explanations of what things mean, as well as both (c) rules for calculation and (d) experience setting up word problems. Of these, my students generally like (b&c) but not (a&d). With (d), I have to disagree with them for their own good, but if they don’t like it when my attempt at (b) becomes too much like (a), then I blame myself.

    Much of the problem with that particular M.O question, of course, is that people are teaching classes to many different types of students and talking as if we’re all teaching the same class. In your classes, you may well be doing the best that you possibly could. But you seem to be arguing (in the entire paragraph quoted above) that if one covers material within one’s students’ grasp and they do not choose to grasp it, then they alone are to blame. Ignoring the possibility that one is explaining things poorly (which in your case I doubt), just because something is within their grasp and nominally part of the syllabus doesn’t mean that it’s a useful thing to cover. Their boredom may be appropriate.

    There’s also the problem that the calculus curriculum, in particular, really is silly. I’ve been pushing Bridging the Vector Calculus Gap all over M.O today, so I may as well mention it again here. Their paper on freshman calculus is most relevant. If one abandons a rigorous definition of limit, as my college-mandated text does, starting with that becomes even more pointless.

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 5th 2011

    If by (b) you mean to eschew giving the precise definition of a derivative or a limit, yet still try to get students to understand something about how the derivative is defined in order that it have the desired meaning, rather than being just a a list of rules for how to differentiate all the functions they are familiar with, then that seems to me in substantially the same spirit as Andrew’s answer, but adjusted appropriately for the level of students.

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011

    But when you do (b), you get to use whatever definition you like, without regard for whether that definition could be explained to the students in the slightly more rigorous of theoretical class down the hall. Consider these two approaches to teaching calculus:

    1. Introduce limits with a hand wave based on ε\epsilonδ\delta analysis. Define derivatives in terms of limits, work out a few that way, then give the rules and use those from then on. Introduce Leibniz notation for derivatives, but warn students that differentials have no meaning by themselves. Define integrals as limits of Riemann sums (and fudge it, since even this is too hard) and state the fundamental theorem without proof. Suddenly introduce differentials again to do integration by substitution or by parts, calculating them by a subtle variation on how you calculated derivatives before.

    2. Introduce differentials with a hand wave based on nonstandard analysis (or differential topology, or SDG, or anything else with a rigorous notion of infinitesimal). Give the rules (with at least one more hand wave), and define derivatives as ratios of differentials. Introduce the prime notation for derivatives of functions. Introduce limits for their own sake (hand wave) later on. Introduce integrals with another wave of the hand and state the fundamental theorem without proof. Like the other integration techniques, integration by substitution or by parts is simply the application of an old idea to a new situation.

    There is more hand waving in (2) than in (1), and it would take more work to fill in the gaps in (2). For some purposes, (2) would therefore be a bad idea. But for other purposes, it’s a good idea. In particular, it removes the problems that annoyed the OP on M.O, of the form ‘Differentiate f(x)=2x 2+3x2f(x) = 2x^2 + 3x - 2 by determining f(x)=lim h0f(x+h)f(x)hf'(x) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{f(x + h) - f(x)}h.’ (This is quoted from half a page of similar problems in a calculus text that I’m supposed to use.) Students in an applied course who find those problems pointless are not refusing to learn; they’re correct.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 7th 2011

    I would love to try (2), but I’ve never had that much freedom in designing my own calculus course yet. I admit that am somewhat apprehensive about giving students any latitude to think that “infinitesimals” and “infinite quantities” are even sometimes valid, since they are often quite willing to treat “infinity” as a number even when they are explicitly told not to. Although I know of course that infinity and infinitesimals can be made precise as “numbers” in plenty of ways, I am unsure of my ability to convey to beginning calculus students how and why it’s valid to use infinity in some ways, but not in other ways. (A physicist might say “you have to learn through experience when it’s okay and when it gives problems”, but as a mathematician I don’t feel comfortable with that.) At least saying “the symbol \infty does not represent a number, but rather a limit process” gives a consistent thing to fall back on that answers all questions in the same way; even without a precise definition of limit, the idea of limit is straightforward; more straightforward than the transfer principle of NSA or the intuitionistic logic of SDG.

    When you teach (2), what do you use for a textbook?

    • CommentRowNumber6.
    • CommentAuthorSteven Gubkin
    • CommentTimeApr 8th 2011
    I really think that there is a lot of room for improvement in the way that calculus is taught. In particular, I think that with a lot of guidance, most students can develop all of calculus for themselves. If the students are developing the material they have to think about it! It is a little hard to explain what I mean, so I will just post a handout on linear maps which I made for my multivariable calculus students. I think it gives the flavor of what I am talking about - the students build the material by doing the exercises. I am not saying it is perfect, but it gets the idea across. I am actually in the process of writing a whole multivariable calculus textbook this way.
    • CommentRowNumber7.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011

    Where I am teaching, my flexibility is this: There is a required book, which the students buy before they ever talk to me, and a required set of topics to cover, but the detailed syllabus is only suggested. If I use another syllabus, then I must tell them, which I do, and they pay no attention. As long as nobody complains and I give my students a grade, then I can do what I want.

    I am starting to teach an Applied Calculus course, and (since we’re not being rigorous anyway), I’m trying (2). It has a web page. In the back of my mind, I assume that all variable quantities are real-valued smooth partial functions with open domain on a fixed but anonymous 11-dimensional smooth manifold, interpreting the differential operator in the sense of calculus on manifolds, so that I know what’s true, but I never say any of those words.

    I don’t agree that the idea of limit is any more straightforward than the idea of infinitesimal change, although it turns out to be easier to make precise (at least in classical mathematics).

    • CommentRowNumber8.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011

    I didn’t say I thought that the idea of limit was more straightforward than the idea of infinitesimal change! I said I thought it was more straightforward than the transfer principle or intuitionistic logic. What I was trying to say is that the mere idea of infinitesimal change, though no harder (and arguably easier) than the idea of limit, seems to me to be easier to “go wrong” with, in addition to being harder to make precise.

    • CommentRowNumber9.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011

    OK, yes, it is easier to go wrong. For purposes of this class, if we stick with smooth variables[*], then we will be all right, but this means that we can apply only smooth operations to them, and thus no taking roots of zero. I should draw their attention to the fact that even d(u3)\mathrm{d}(\root{3}u) is undefined where u=0u = 0 (as suggested by the Power Rule, which gives division by zero) and remark that calculus as we are studying it therefore doesn’t apply there (although a more sophisticated analysis can).

    [*] The term ‘smooth variable’ should be interpreted in much the same way as ‘random variable’, which Lawvere would argue is in accordance with the original intended meaning of ‘variable’. In class, I often say ‘smoothly varying quantity’, although this becomes simply ‘variable’ on second reference.

    • CommentRowNumber10.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
    • (edited Apr 14th 2011)

    […] the mere idea of infinitesimal change, […] being harder to make precise.

    Maybe that’s more a matter of being brought up with one or the other. As you know, Anders Kock in his textbooks is meaning to demonstrate that the notion of infinitesimal is easier to teach and use in an elementary fashion.

    • CommentRowNumber11.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
    • (edited Apr 14th 2011)

    Urs 10: for some purposes nilpotent infinitesimals suffice. But in general for calculus, one has often the case when working with first order infnitesimals that in computation with first order infinitesimals gives the result in whichthe first order contributions cancels and the second order remnants matter and so on. So, while for geometry many things can be done systematically with nilpotent infinitesimals, the non-nilpotent ones like in nonstandard analysis are needed; also the calculations there are not just algebraic manipulations, but many other theorems appear using infinitesimals (and infinitely large ones!) where sometimes transfer principle is really useful. So I think that SDG is really not a full replacement for the methods of nonstandard analysis, though for some purposes it may be. (I know that in Moerdijk-Reyes there are some nonnilpotent infinitesimals as well, but it is not full story yet, and I personally do not understand if there are also various sizes of infinitely large there).

    • CommentRowNumber12.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011

    My impression that it’s easier to go wrong with infinitesimals is based on my experience teaching calculus and the sorts of mistakes that students make in trying to use “infinity.” It makes me sad, because I would love to teach with infinitesimals, so I don’t think that I am just being biased by my upbringing.

    Also there is integral calculus to consider, about which nilpotent infinitesimals seem to have very little to say.

    • CommentRowNumber13.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 14th 2011
    • (edited Apr 14th 2011)

    Also there is integral calculus to consider, about which nilpotent infinitesimals seem to have very little to say.

    Actually, integral calculus comes in naturally in the \infty-categorical version of contexts for nilpotent infnitesimals:

    For XX a manifold , let TX=X (Δ inf )T X = X^{(\Delta^\bullet_{inf})} be its infinitesimal singular simplicial complex (which is not an interal hom, therefore the parantheses in the exponent). A morphism X (Δ inf )B nX^{(\Delta^\bullet_{inf})} \to \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R} is canonically identified with a closed smooth nn-form on XX. The homotopy classes of such morphisms, relative boundary, are naturally identified with the integral of these forms over XX.

    I used to like to call this phenomenon “integration without integration”. There is detailed discussion of this at Lie integration (where it serves to show that the formal Lie integration of the L L_\infty-algebra b n1b^{n-1} \mathbb{R} is B n\mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R}) and at infinity-Chern-Simons theory (schreiber) (where it serves to give a intrinsic \infty-topos theoretic way to speak about nn-volume holonomy of a circle nn-bundle with connection).

    Notice that I am not claiming to participate in the discussion about how to teach calculus. I am just thinking about the general question of wich mathematical notions of infinitesimal are natural. But actually the proof of the “integration without integration”-statement above is a pretty simple exercise in Stokes’ lemma. So if prepared with care, it might actually be usable forteaching. I’d have to think about that.

    • CommentRowNumber14.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2011

    Something which just occurred to me now is this: in SDG can we talk about non-analytic functions? Doesn’t the microlinear property/axiom ensure we have Taylor expansions? (perhaps this is where my reasoning has gone wrong) Or at the very least, we can’t restrict a function RRR\to R non-analytic at 0 along D RD_\infty\to R and then recover the original function, and this seems to me to be counter to the general feel of SDG. As I said, I may have this completely wrong…

    On the teaching side, I applaud what Toby is doing; I wish I could do something similar if I was teaching. We have approx. 900 first year students studying the main mathematics course at that level (mostly engineers!), and multiple lecturers teaching the course in parallel sessions, so it is out of the question :-(

    • CommentRowNumber15.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2011

    @Urs #13: So if I ask you to integrate x 2x^2 from 00 to 55, you can do it using Lie algebras in SDG? Can you explain why it gives you the area under a curve because it’s adding up lots of little rectangles?

    @David #14: My understanding is that the microlinear property ensures we have Taylor expansions, but doesn’t guarantee that these expansion converge to the function for any non-infinitesimal input.

    • CommentRowNumber16.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2011

    @Mike - ah, that makes sense.

    • CommentRowNumber17.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 15th 2011
    • (edited Apr 15th 2011)

    So if I ask you to integrate x 2x^2 from 0 to 5, you can do it using Lie algebras in SDG?

    So my claim is that in any \infty-SDG context there is naturally an incarnation of the following classical fact and its ingredients:

    the classical fact is this: on the set Ω 1(D 1)\Omega^1(D^1) of smooth 1-forms on the standard interval , consider the equivalence relation

    Ω cl 1(D 2)Ω 1(D 1) \Omega^1_{cl}(D^2) \stackrel{\to}{\to} \Omega^1(D^1)

    induced by the two hemisphere boundary embeddings D 1D 2D^1 \hookrightarrow D^2. The quotient of this is naturally an \mathbb{R}-torsor with 0, hence is \mathbb{R} itself. The image of any 1-form fdxf d x in the quotient is 0 1f(x)dx\int_0^1 f(x) d x.

    Ω cl 1(D 2)Ω 1(D 1) 0 1 \Omega^1_{cl}(D^2) \stackrel{\to}{\to} \Omega^1(D^1) \stackrel{\int_0^1 }{\to} \mathbb{R}

    The good thing about this (for me, at least) is that this can be rephrased very abstractly in any suitable \infty-SDG context (which I would call a "cohesive \infty-topos with infinitesimal cohesion").

    But what it does not give is what you ask for here:

    Can you explain why it gives you the area under a curve because it’s adding up lots of little rectangles?

    No, I can’t see how to get the algorithm called the Riemann integral internally this way. The perspective here is different. I believe the way to think about what I say exists nicely is this: integration of functions is a special case of the general concept of push-forward in cohomology (here: in de Rham cohomology). All things cohomological exist naturally in \infty-toposes. Synthetic de Rham cohomology exists in suitable SDG-like \infty-toposes. Combined this gives a notion of integration of forms, hence of functions, in SDG-like \infty-toposes.

    So, as I said, I don’t claim that this has any relevance for teaching calculus. It is just to point out that in contexts with nilpotent infinitesimals, there is a nice way to speak of integration.

    • CommentRowNumber18.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 16th 2011

    My infinitesimals are 1-forms; whether these are nilpotent depends on which multiplication you use.

    • CommentRowNumber19.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2011

    @Toby: how does the argument go that, say, the derivative of x 2x^2 is 2x2x, with infinitesimals that are 1-forms?

    • CommentRowNumber20.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeApr 18th 2011

    @Mike from the notes of Toby’s that I’ve looked at, you form d(x 2)=2xdxd(x^2) = 2x dx, and only worry about extracting the 2x2x later. But I haven’t put in the thought as to how this links with the high-end stuff so much.

    • CommentRowNumber21.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2011
    • (edited Apr 19th 2011)

    So if I understand well then Toby is talking about formal differential calculus, not really about infinitesimals in the sense of either SDG or NSA. While it is true that the fact dxdx=0d x \wedge d x = 0 is closely related to the nilpotency of infinitesimals in SDG, I would not quite call a differential form an “infinitesimal”, strictly speaking. It is rather a function on a space with infinitesimal extension. That difference will not matter for the purposes of Toby’s in teaching, but I think it does matter in the context of some of the discussion we had here.

    Here is a nice abstract way to do d(x 2)=2xdxd (x^2) = 2 x d x with infinitesimals and functions on infinitesimal spaces (not meant as being relevant for teaching this stuff, just for its own sake, sorry if this hijacks this thread here):

    Go to the \infty-topos H\mathbf{H} of synthetic differential infinity-groupoids. In there is canonically for each XX the \infty-groupoid Π inf(X)\mathbf{\Pi}_{inf}(X) of infinitesimal paths in XX (the de Rham space of XX). Morphisms Π inf(X)B n\mathbf{\Pi}_{inf}(X) \to \mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R} are infinitesimal flat parallel transport over nn-dimensional infinitesimal paths with values in \mathbb{R}. These are canonically identified with closed nn-forms. The functor Π inf\mathbf{\Pi}_{inf} has a right adjoint inf\mathbf{\flat}_{inf}. There is a canonical morphism B n infB n+1\mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R} \to \mathbf{\flat}_{inf} \mathbf{B}^{n+1} \mathbb{R}. This is the (higher analog) of the Maurer-Cartan form on the (n+1)(n+1)-group B n\mathbf{B}^n \mathbb{R}. In particular for n=0n = 0 this is the ordinary Maurer-Cartan form θ=dx\theta = d x on \mathbb{R}.

    Now let f:Xf : X \to \mathbb{R} be a function. For instance X=X = \mathbb{R} and f(x)=x 2f(x) = x^2. Then form the composite

    df=f *θ:Xfθ infB d f = f^* \theta : X \stackrel{f}{\to} \mathbb{R} \stackrel{\theta}{\to} \mathbf{\flat}_{inf}\mathbf{B}\mathbb{R}

    or equivalently its adjunct

    df:Π infXB. d f : \mathbf{\Pi}_{inf} X \to \mathbf{B} \mathbb{R} \,.

    This is canonically identified with a closed 1-form, namely with the familiar dfd f. For instance df=2xdxd f = 2 x d x for f(x)=x 2f(x) = x^2.

    (I should say that a detailed write-up of the technical details behind this story I have so far for the context of smooth infinity-groupoids only, need to do it for the synthetic-differential infinity-groupoids, too. But once one establishes the “de Rham theorem for \infty-stacks” as indicated in that last entry, the discussion is analogous. )

    • CommentRowNumber22.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeApr 19th 2011

    @David: Yes, but what I meant was, the usual argument goes something like (x+dx) 2=x 2+2xdx+(dx) 2(x+dx)^2 = x^2 + 2x dx + (dx)^2, and we ignore the (dx) 2(dx)^2 so that the change in xx is 2xdx2x dx. In NSA, we ignore the (dx) 2(dx)^2 because it’s a higher order infinitesimal; in SDG we ignore it because it equals zero. Maybe with 1-forms we can ignore it because dxdx=0dx \wedge dx = 0, but what I don’t see is what “x+dxx+dx” even means, if xx is a number and dxdx a 1-form.

    • CommentRowNumber23.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011
    • (edited Apr 20th 2011)

    A 1-form is not an infintiesimal, but a function on infinitesimals.

    Precisely, let DD be the infinitesimal interval, then a 1-form on the line X=X = \mathbb{R} is a function on X (Δ inf 1)X×DX^{(\Delta^1_{inf})} \simeq X \times D that vanishes when restricted along the inclusion XX (Δ inf 1)X \to X^{(\Delta^1_{inf})}.

    So if you start with a function f:Xf : X \to \mathbb{R} such as f:xx 2f : x \mapsto x^2 you can form another function f˜\tilde f by precomposing with +:X×DX+ : X \times D \to X. With xx a (generalized) point in XX and ε\epsilon a (generalized) point in DD, this yields the new function

    f˜:(x,ε)f(x+ε)=f(x)+εf(x)+(𝒪(ε 2)=0)(1). \tilde f : (x, \epsilon) \mapsto f(x + \epsilon) = f(x) + \epsilon f'(x) + (\mathcal{O}(\epsilon^2 ) = 0) \;\;\;\;\; (1) \,.

    We can also precompose ff with the projection X×DXX \times D \to X to get another function that we should still call ff. Then the difference

    f˜f:X×DX \tilde f - f : X \times D \to X

    has the property that it vanishes when restricted along XX×DX \to X \times D, so is a 1-form. Indeed, this is the function that sends

    (f˜f):(x,ε)εf(x). (\tilde f - f ) : (x, \epsilon) \mapsto \epsilon f'(x) \,.

    Dually the function algeba of X×DX \times D is

    Hom(X×D,)C (X)[ε]/(ε 2) Hom(X \times D, \mathbb{R}) \simeq C^\infty(X) \otimes \mathbb{R}[\epsilon]/(\epsilon^2)

    where I am again using the letter ε\epsilon, but now for something different, for the generator of C (D)C^\infty(D).

    In this notation we may identify

    f˜f=εf(2) \tilde f - f = \epsilon f' \;\;\;\; (2)

    So the ε\epsilon here is a function on the infinitesimal space DD and this is what can be written dxd x.

    But in this step there is a slight abuse of notation, and that’s the one appearing in the above discussion: the first ε\epsilon in (1) is a generalized point of DD, as such it could be added to the generalized point xX=x \in X = \mathbb{R} under the inlcusion DXD \hookrightarrow X. But then in (2) I used the same letter for a function on DD. In the first sense it is an infinitesimal, in the second it is a function on an infinitesimal space.

    • CommentRowNumber24.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    I have started typing at differentiation a section optimistically titled

    Exposition of differentiation via infinitesimals

    • CommentRowNumber25.
    • CommentAuthorzskoda
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011
    • (edited Apr 20th 2011)

    In algebraic geometry people often talk about the duality between

    • the infinitesimals (of all orders: note the filtration there and the filtration of infinitesimal neighborhoods) and

    • the regular differential operators (of finite order, by the definition, with the order filtration).

    I know a bit about it, but do not know how to canonically treat this issue so I never wrote a sensible exposition of it in nnLab. I do not know if it is treated in standard exposition of SDG.

    • CommentRowNumber26.
    • CommentAuthorTobyBartels
    • CommentTimeApr 20th 2011

    One of the hand-waves in method #2 in comment #4 above (the parenthetical “with at least one more hand wave”) is for the product rule d(uv)=vdu+udv\mathrm{d}(u v) = v \,\mathrm{d}u + u \,\mathrm{d}v. For this you do need to say (and I did say) something like “and we ignore this doubly infinitesimal square here”. Once you have the product rule, d(x 2)=2xdx\mathrm{d}(x^2) = 2x \,\mathrm{d}x is an easy special case.