Leibniz's notation

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

dy
dx
d2y
dx 2
The first and second derivatives of y with respect to x, in the Leibniz notation.

Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz (1646–1716), German philosopher, mathematician, and namesake of this widely used
mathematical notation in calculus.

In calculus, Leibniz's notation, named in honor of the 17th-century

German philosopher and mathematician Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz, uses the
 {
\
d
i
symbols dx and dy to represent infinitely small (or infinitesimal) increments of x and y,
srespectively, just as Δx and Δy represent finite increments of x and y, respectively.[1]
p
Consider y as a function of a variable x, or y = f(x). If this is the case, then
lthe derivative of y with respect to x, which later came to be viewed as the limit
a
y
{swas, according to Leibniz, the quotient of an infinitesimal increment of y by an infinitesimal
increment
\t of x, or
dy
il
where the right hand side is Joseph-Louis Lagrange's notation for the derivative of f at x. The
se
infinitesimal increments are called differentials. Related to this is the integral in which the
pinfinitesimal increments are summed (e.g. to compute lengths, areas and volumes as sums of
l\tiny pieces), for which Leibniz also supplied a closely related notation involving the same
differentials,
al a notation whose efficiency proved decisive in the development of continental
European
yi mathematics.
Leibniz's concept of infinitesimals, long considered to be too imprecise to be used as a
sm
tfoundation of calculus, was eventually replaced by rigorous concepts developed
y_
by Weierstrass and others in the 19th century. Consequently, Leibniz's quotient notation was
l{
e\re-interpreted to stand for the limit of the modern definition. However, in many instances, the
D
symbol did seem to act as an actual quotient would and its usefulness kept it popular even in
{e
the
\l face of several competing notations. Several different formalisms were developed in the
ft20th century that can give rigorous meaning to notions of infinitesimals and infinitesimal
radisplacements, including nonstandard analysis, tangent space, O notation and others.
a
cxThe derivatives and integrals of calculus can be packaged into the modern theory
\
of differential forms, in which the derivative is genuinely a ratio of two differentials, and the
{r
integral
di likewise behaves in exact accordance with Leibniz notation. However, this requires
ygthat derivative and integral first be defined by other means, and as such expresses the self-
}h
consistency and computational efficacy of the Leibniz notation rather than giving it a new
{t
foundation.
da
xr
}r Contents
}o
w
• = 1 History
f
'0
• 2 Leibniz's notation for differentiation
(}
x{
)\
,f
}r
 • 2.1 Leibniz notation for higher derivatives

• 2.2 Use in various formulas

• 3 Modern justification of infinitesimals

• 4 Other notations of Leibniz

• 5 See also

• 6 Notes

• 7 References {
\
d
i
History[edit] s
The Newton–Leibniz approach to infinitesimal calculus was introduced in the p 17th century.
While Newton worked with fluxions and fluents, Leibniz based his approach l on
generalizations of sums and differences.[2] Leibniz was the first to use the  character.
a He
based the character on the Latin word summa ("sum"), which he wrote ſumma withy
the elongated s commonly used in Germany at the time. Viewing differences as the inverse
s
operation of summation,[3] he used the symbol d, the first letter of the Latin differentia, to
t
indicate this inverse operation.[2] Leibniz was fastidious about notation; spending years
y
experimenting, adjusting, rejecting and corresponding with other mathematicians about them.
/ [4] Notations he used for the differential of y ranged successively from ω, l, land yd until he
finally settled on dy.[5] His integral sign first appeared publicly in the article "De
e Geometria
Recondita et analysi indivisibilium atque infinitorum" (On a hidden geometry and analysis of
indivisibles and infinites), published in Acta Eruditorum in June 1686,[6][7] but he had been
\
using it in private manuscripts at least since 1675.[8][9][10] Leibniz first used dx in the article
"Nova Methodus pro Maximis et Minimis" also published in Acta Eruditorum in t 1684.[11] While
/ the symbol dxdy does appear in private manuscripts of 1675,[12][13] it does not e appear in this
form in either of the above-mentioned published works. Leibniz did, however,xuse forms such
as dy ad dx and dy : dx in print.[11]
t
English mathematicians were encumbered by Newton's dot notation until 1803 when Robert
s
Woodhouse published a description of the continental notation. Later the Analytical t
Society at Cambridge University promoted the adoption of Leibniz's notation. y
l
At the end of the 19th century, Weierstrass's followers ceased to take Leibniz's e notation for
derivatives and integrals literally. That is, mathematicians felt that the concept
\
of infinitesimals contained logical contradictions in its development. A number of 19th century
i
n
t

}
 {
\
d
i
mathematicians (Weierstrass and others) found logically rigorous ways to treat derivatives
s{
and
p\ integrals without infinitesimals using limits as shown above, while Cauchy exploited both
ldinfinitesimals and limits (see Cours d'Analyse). Nonetheless, Leibniz's notation is still in
ai
general use. Although the notation need not be taken literally, it is usually simpler than
ys
alternatives
sp when the technique of separation of variables is used in the solution of differential
tlequations. In physical applications, one may for example regard f(x) as measured in meters
ya
per second, and dx in seconds, so that f(x) dx is in meters, and so is the value of its definite
ly
integral.
es In that way the Leibniz notation is in harmony with dimensional analysis.
t
\y{
Leibniz's
l\
notation for differentiation[edit]
iefMain article: Notation for differentiation
r
m
{aSuppose a dependent variable y represents a function f of an independent variable x, that is,
_\c{
{f\
Then
\r{d the derivative of the function f, in Leibniz's notation for differentiation, can be written as
dai
D
ecys
The Leibniz expression, also, at times, written dy/dx, is one of several notations used for
l}pderivatives and derived functions. A common alternative is Lagrange's notation
t{l
ada
xyAnother
y
alternative is Newton's notation, often used for derivatives with respect to time
(like velocity),
x}s which requires placing a dot over the dependent variable (in this case, x):
\}{t
td\y
Lagrange's "prime" notation is especially useful in discussions of derived functions and has
otx,l
the
}{e advantage of having a natural way of denoting the value of the derived function at a
0}\specific value. However, the Leibniz notation has other virtues that have kept it popular
}=
\ty
through the years.
{,e=
/ xf In its modern interpretation, the expression dydx should not be read as the division of two
\=
fdyt( quantities dx and dy (as Leibniz had envisioned it); rather, the whole expression should be
ro'{x seen as a single symbol that is shorthand for
at=
)
cfo(note Δ vs. d,
. where Δ indicates a finite difference).
{'r} The expression may also be thought of as the application of the differential
/ {x( operator ddx (again, a single symbol) to y, regarded as a function of x. This operator is
\}x
D
})
e.{
l}\
 {
\
d
i
written D in Euler's notation. Leibniz did not use this form, but his use of the
s symbol d corresponds fairly closely to this modern concept.
pWhile there is no division implied by the notation, the division-like notation is useful since in
lmany situations, the derivative operator does behave like a division, making some results
about
a derivatives easy to obtain and remember. [14] This notation owes its longevity to the fact
that it seems to reach to the very heart of the geometrical and mechanical applications of the
y
calculus.[15]
s
Leibniz
t notation for higher derivatives[edit]
yIf y = f(x), the nth derivative of f in Leibniz notation is given by,[16]
l
e
/ This notation, for the second derivative, is obtained by using ddx as an operator in the
{f following way,[16]
\^
f{A third derivative, which might be written as,
r(
an
c)can be obtained from
}
{(
dx
Similarly, the higher derivatives may be obtained inductively.
y^\)
/ }{l= While it is possible, with carefully chosen definitions, to interpret dydx as a quotient
{3e2 of differentials, this should not be done with the higher order forms. [17]
This
d}f\ notation was, however, not used by Leibniz. In print he did not use multi-tiered notation
nor
xytf numerical exponents (before 1695). To write x3 for instance, he would write xxx, as was
common in his time. The square of a differential, as it might appear in an arc length formula
}(rfor instance, was written as dxdx. However, Leibniz did use his d notation as we would today
}{ause operators, namely he would write a second derivative as ddy and a third derivative
d\cas dddy. In 1695 Leibniz started to write d2⋅x and d3⋅x for ddx and dddx respectively,
=
but l'Hôpital,
{xf in his textbook on calculus written around the same time, used Leibniz's original
forms.
\^r{ [18]

Use
f{ad in various formulas[edit]
r3c2^
One reason that Leibniz's notations in calculus have endured so long is that they permit the
a}{easy recall of the appropriate formulas used for differentiation and integration. For instance,
c}{nthe chain rule—suppose that the function g is differentiable at x and y = f(u) is differentiable
at u = g(x).
}d Then the composite function y = f(g(x)) is differentiable at x and its derivative can
be
{\y expressed in Leibniz notation as,[19]
d,l}
e{
y=
This can be generalized to deal with the composites of several appropriately defined and
}\fdrelated functions, u1, u2, ..., un and would be expressed as,
{,tx
d{(^
u\{
_}f\n
{}rf
{
\
d{
i\
Also, the integration by substitution formula may be expressed by[20]
sd{
pi\
lsdwhere x is thought of as a function of a new variable u and the function y on the left is
apiexpressed in terms of x while on the right it is expressed in terms of u.
ylsIf y = f(x) where f is a differentiable function that is invertible, the derivative of the inverse
sapfunction, when it exists, can be given by,[21]
tyl
ysa
where
lty the parentheses are added to emphasize the fact that the derivative is not a fraction.
eys
One of the simplest types of differential equations is[22]
lt
fey{\
'l\iwhere M and N are continuous functions. Solving (implicitly) such an equation can be done by
(\{efnexamining the equation in its differential form,
xi\rt
a
)ndM
and
ti(cy integrating to obtain
=
{sx\
\M
p){,
rdRewriting,
(l+ when possible, a differential equation into this form and applying the above
m
xaN
argument is known as the separation of variables technique for solving such equations.
)y(}=
{\syIn each of these instances the Leibniz notation for a derivative appears to act like a fraction,
s,t)dieven though, in its modern interpretation, it isn't one.
tdy{n
}xl\t
Modern
}+
ef justification of infinitesimals[edit]
y
{\r=
Ina{ the 1960s, building upon earlier work by Edwin Hewitt and Jerzy Łoś, Abraham
\iM
B
n(c\Robinson developed mathematical explanations for Leibniz's infinitesimals that were
itxf
acceptable by contemporary standards of rigor, and developed nonstandard analysis based
g){r
on
da these ideas. Robinson's methods are used by only a minority of mathematicians. Jerome
gN
(xycKeisler wrote a first-year calculus textbook, Elementary calculus: an infinitesimal approach,
(y+
}
based on Robinson's approach.
})N
{
{\(d1From the point of view of modern infinitesimal theory, Δx is an infinitesimal x-increment, Δy is
\,yx}the corresponding y-increment, and the derivative is the standard part of the infinitesimal ratio:
fd)}{.
ryd}\{
a=
yld
cC
0eu
=
.0,f}
{}t
 {
\
d
i
Then one sets , , { { so that by definition,  is
{ the ratio of dy by dx.
s
Similarly, \ \ most mathematicians
although \ now view an integral
p
dd d
l
{ ii i
a
\ ss s
yas a limit
d pp p
s
i ll l
t
s aa a
ywhere Δx is an interval containing xi, Leibniz viewed it as the sum (the integral sign denoted
p yy y
summation
l for him) of infinitely many infinitesimal quantities f(x) dx. From the viewpoint of
lnonstandard analysis, ss s the integral as the standard part of such an infinite
it is correct to view
e
a
sum. tt t
y yy y
\The trade-off needed to gain the precision of these concepts is that the set of real
s ll l
lnumbers must be extended to the set of hyperreal numbers.
t ee e
i
y
m
l dd f
Other notations of Leibniz[edit]
e xy '
_
Leibniz ==
experimented with many different ( notations in various areas of mathematics. He felt
{
\that good notation \ f was fundamental in xthe pursuit of mathematics. In a letter to l'Hôpital in
\1693 he says:[23]
i D' )
D
n One of thee (secrets of analysis consists
} in the characteristic, that is, in the art of
e
t lx
l skilful employment of the available signs, and you will observe, Sir, by the small
t)
t enclosure
f a[on
d determinants] that Vieta and Descartes have not known all the
a
( mysteries. x
x x}
x
)He refined his criteria } for good notation over time and came to realize the value of "adopting
\
\symbolisms which could be set up in a line like ordinary type, without the need of widening
r
,the spaces between lines to make room for symbols with sprawling parts." [24] For instance, in
ihis early works he heavily used a vinculum to indicate grouping of symbols, but later he
d
gintroduced the idea of using pairs of parentheses for this purpose, thus appeasing the
x
htypesetters who no longer had to widen the spaces between lines on a page and making the
}pages look more attractive.[25]
t
aMany of the over 200 new symbols introduced by Leibniz are still in use today. [26] Besides the
rdifferentials dx, dy and the integral sign ( ∫ ) already mentioned, he also introduced the colon
r for division, the dot (⋅) for multiplication, the geometric signs for similar (~) and congruence
(:)
(≅), the use of Recorde's equal sign (=) for proportions (replacing Oughtred's :: notation) and
othe double-suffix notation for determinants.[23]
w

See
0
also[edit]
• }Newton's notation
\
s
u
m
• Leibniz–Newton calculus controversy

Notes[edit]
1. ^ Stewart, James (2008). Calculus: Early Transcendentals (6th ed.). Brooks/Cole. ISBN 978-0-495-01166-8.

2. ^ Jump up to:a b Katz 1993, p. 524

3. ^ Katz 1993, p. 529

4. ^ Mazur 2014, p. 166

5. ^ Cajori 1993, Vol. II, p. 203, footnote 4

6. ^ Swetz, Frank J., Mathematical Treasure: Leibniz's Papers on Calculus - Integral Calculus, Convergence, Mathematical
Association of America, retrieved February 11,2017

7. ^ Stillwell, John (1989). Mathematics and its History. Springer. p. 110.

8. ^ Leibniz, G. W. (2005) [1920]. The Early Mathematical Manuscripts of Leibniz. Translated by Child, J. M. Dover. pp. 73–74,
80. ISBN 978-0-486-44596-0.

9. ^ Leibniz, G. W., Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Reihe VII: Mathematische Schriften, vol. 5: Infinitesimalmathematik 1674-
1676, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008, pp. 288–295("Analyseos tetragonisticae pars secunda", October 29, 1675) and 321–
331 ("Methodi tangentium inversae exempla", November 11, 1675).

10.^ Aldrich, John. "Earliest Uses of Symbols of Calculus". Retrieved 20 April 2017.

11.^ Jump up to:a b Cajori 1993, Vol. II, p. 204
12.^ Leibniz, G. W., Sämtliche Schriften und Briefe, Reihe VII: Mathematische Schriften, vol. 5: Infinitesimalmathematik 1674-
1676, Berlin: Akademie Verlag, 2008, pp. 321–331 esp. 328 ("Methodi tangentium inversae exempla", November 11, 1675).

13.^ Cajori 1993, Vol. II, p. 186

14.^ Jordan, D. W.; Smith, P. (2002). Mathematical Techniques: An Introduction for the Engineering, Physical, and Mathematical
Sciences. Oxford University Press. p. 58.

15.^ Cajori 1993, Vol. II, p. 262

16.^ Jump up to:a b Briggs & Cochran 2010, p. 141
17.^ Swokowski 1983, p. 135
18.^ Cajori 1993, pp. 204-205
19.^ Briggs & Cochran 2010, p. 176
20.^ Swokowski 1983, p. 257
21.^ Swokowski 1983, p. 369
22.^ Swokowski 1983, p. 895
23.^ Jump up to:a b Cajori 1993, Vol. II, p. 185
24.^ Cajori 1993, Vol. II, p. 184
25.^ Mazur 2014, pp. 167-168
26.^ Mazur 2014, p. 167

References[edit]
• Briggs, William; Cochran, Lyle (2010), Calculus / Early Transcendentals / Single Variable,
Addison-Wesley, ISBN 978-0-321-66414-3
• Cajori, Florian (1993) [1928], A History of Mathematical Notations, New York: Dover, ISBN 0-
486-67766-4
• Katz, Victor J. (1993), A History of Mathematics / An Introduction (2nd ed.), Addison Wesley
Longman, ISBN 978-0-321-01618-8
• Mazur, Joseph (2014), Enlightening Symbols / A Short History of Mathematical Notation and
Its Hidden Powers, Princeton University Press, ISBN 978-0-691-17337-5
• Swokowski, Earl W. (1983), Calculus with Analytic Geometry (Alternate ed.), Prindle, Weber
and Schmidt, ISBN 0-87150-341-7
hide

• v
• t
• e
Infinitesimals
• Adequality
• Leibniz's notation
• Integral symbol
• Criticism of nonstandard analysis
History
• The Analyst
• The Method of Mechanical Theorems
• Cavalieri's principle
• Method of indivisibles
• Nonstandard analysis
• Nonstandard calculus
• Internal set theory
Related branches
• Synthetic differential geometry
• Smooth infinitesimal analysis
• Constructive nonstandard analysis
• Infinitesimal strain theory (physics)
• Differentials
• Hyperreal numbers
Formalizations
• Dual numbers
• Surreal numbers
Individual concepts
• Standard part function
• Transfer principle
 • Hyperinteger
• Increment theorem
• Monad
• Internal set
• Levi-Civita field
• Hyperfinite set
• Law of Continuity
• Overspill
• Microcontinuity
• Transcendental law of homogeneity
• Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz
• Abraham Robinson
Mathematicians
• Pierre de Fermat
• Augustin-Louis Cauchy
• Leonhard Euler
• Analyse des Infiniment Petits
Textbooks
• Elementary Calculus
• Cours d'Analyse

Categories: 

• Differential calculus

• Gottfried Leibniz

• History of calculus
J
• Mathematical notation
u
m
• Nonstandard
p analysis
J
• Mathematics
ut of infinitesimals
o
m
p
n
ta
ov
i
sg
ea
at
ri
co
hn