|
|
 |
|
|
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 12
Subject: Consulting
Hello,
Your expertise and services, as laid out on your web site,
are quite impressive. It would be an honor to be associated with
a winner such as your company.
I have been a professor of mathematics for some twenty (20)
years in a community college. I have two Masters degrees, one in
Pure Mathematics and the other in Mathematical Finance, which is equivalent to Quantitative Finance
or Financial Engineering.
Given my credentials, I can expertly and confidently teach
many of the subjects (especially the mathematical ones) in your
curriculum. I wonder if I can be of use to your organization.
I’d be glad to email you a copy of my resume. Please feel free
to let me know what you think about my proposal.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
Albert
|
| |
From:
Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 15
Subject: Re: Consulting 5The symbol dy/dx ... does it
represent a fraction or a whole symbol?
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 15
Subject: Re: ConsultingHello,
I just opened your email.
The symbol dy/dx represents the derivative of (the function)
y with respect to x. So, the symbol dy/dx represents a single
idea – the idea of the derivative. Therefore it is a whole
symbol. This symbol was invented by Leibniz, the other
contemporaneous inventor of the Calculus.
I could say more about your question. But I will leave it at
that at this point.
Please feel free to ask further questions.
Sincerely,
Albert
|
| |
From:
Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 15
Subject: Re: Consulting
Hi Albert: I accept your history but not your math. Why do
you reject dy/dx as a fraction — a ratio of differentials? You
said you could say more on the topic ... Cheers, Glyn
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 15
Subject: Re: Consulting
Hi,
That’s my point! I did say I could say more.
You can treat them as (infinitesimal) differentials. But
there is and has been a whole lot of philosophical/logical
debate as to what an infinitesimal actually is. This area of
discussion – as exciting, rigorous and important as it is – is
beyond my expertise.
In fact, when it comes to practicality, we treat dy/dx as if
it were a fraction. As mentioned, this happens, for example,
when we want to find the differential of a function f(x) as in
dy=f’(x)dx. Or, sometimes we write dy/dx=1/(dx/dy) or in the
chain rule case: dy/dx = (dy/du) (du/dx).
Anyway, getting back to the point, the symbol dy/dx
represents – MORE THAN ANYTHING ELSE – the limit of ∆y/∆x, where
∆y = f(x+∆x) – f(x), as ∆x approaches zero, if the limit exists.
That limit is singular. Now, granted ∆y/∆x is indeed a fraction
as long as ∆x≠0, which latter condition is the case at all
times, anyway. If we treat dy and dx as infinitesimal quantities
such that dx≠0, and yet exceedingly close to zero, then we may
treat dy/dx as a fraction.
Sorry, if I have used too many words to express my thoughts.
But, that’s my response.
It’s been fun exchanging a bit of math with you. Please keep
communicating.
If you are still interested in receiving a copy of my resume,
please let me know.
Sincerely,
Albert
|
| |
From:
Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 15
Subject: Re: Consulting
What is an infinitesimal? What is a differential? – Glyn
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 15
Subject: Consulting
Hi Glyn,
Where do I begin?
As I noted earlier, the philosophical/logical questions
surrounding the infinitesimal are, basically, beyond my
expertise. There is quite a bit (or a lot) of history behind it.
It was introduced by the ancient Greeks. In the early stages of
the development of the Calculus the infinitesimal was considered
necessary and important. But Weierstrass made obsolete the use
of infinitesimals in mathematics.
A definition, albeit unsatisfactory, of infinitesimal is that
it represents a positive quantity that is less than any other
positive quantity. In the system of real numbers, no such thing
could exist.
Notwithstanding the preceding, a colleague of mine has
claimed that it is possible to give the notion of the
infinitesimal a non-contradictory treatment in a certain logico-deductive
system. Once I sat in a lecture attempting to do just this.
Given a function f(x) of a single variable x, the
differential dy is defined as dy=f’(x)dx. But then the question
is: what does dx represent? Yes, dx is the differential of x
itself. But what is it? Some have defined it as a quantity that
approaches zero but never becomes zero. But, demanding rigor,
this creates more headache in math as the word “approaches”
creates a new mystery. But it does give an intuitive sense as to
what is happening.
One way to define dy is to consider it as a function of two
variables, let’s say, x and h, that has the following property:
dy(x,h) = f’(x) h + q(x,h) for some function q such that
limit of q(x,h)/h is zero as h approaches zero. Clearly this
does coincide with dy=f’(x)dx (where dx=h) as dx approaches (but
never becomes) zero.
Now, the idea of differential is of course applicable to
multi-variable functions. Without getting into too much
symbolism here, I’d like to mention that author Walter Rudin in
his classic book REAL AND COMPLEX ANALYSIS (ISBN 0070542341),
third edition, on page 150 states “The term differential is also
often used for T’(x)” where T is a function of x. Earlier he
calls T’(x) as the derivative of T at x (where x may be thought
of as a vector here).
Another way, yet, to verbalize the idea of the differential
is to say that it is the rate at which the function f(x) changes
with respect to x. The slightest change dx in x results in a
change dy in y=f(x) where dy=f’(x)dx.
Fortunately, when it comes to doing math itself, we hardly
need to spend time on the hairsplitting aspects of the dx or dy
or the infinitesimal. We just treat dx and dy formally, and move
on from there.
I feel I have accomplished very little in terms of
explicating the question of what exactly an infinitesimal is.
Perhaps we need not be concerned about the philosophical/logical
aspects of the infinitesimal. We need to make sure, though, that
its FORMAL use in math does not lead to contradictions. So far,
so good.
But, instead of spending time on the fine details of dx or dy
as I have done so far, why not testing me with some math
questions? But really, what a teacher should be concerned about
is not only knowledge of the subject matter, but the delivery of
the subject, just as much. So, if you like, you may either ask
me more questions, of any sort you like, or ask me to make a
presentation of a mathematical idea, or something like that.
Feel free to ask more questions.
Albert
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 23
Subject: Fw: Consulting
Dear Mr. Glyn Holton,
Wondering if our email exchange has run its course. Has it?
Please feel free to express your perception/evaluation of my
math knowledge, etc. I have a thick skin and can take it. Please
go for it unabashedly!
At any rate, would like to thank you for the math challenges
you put before me. It was a unique experience.
Sincerely,
Albert
**** I will not send you emails unless you send one
first.****
|
| |
From:
Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 24
Subject: Re: Consulting
Hi Albert:
Sorry, I just got distracted.
Do an experiment. Get a standard college calculus text and
look up “infinitesimal” in the index. I have tried with about
ten calculus texts myself and never found a single mention of
infinitesimals. During the 1800s, mathematicians, and especially
Cauchy, finally got around to rigorizing calculus. They got rid
of the “infinitesimal” business once and for all, replacing
infinitesimals with limits. It is troubling how widespread
misunderstanding of calculus is 150 years later. Instead of
understanding calculus from Cauchy’s rigorous standpoint, people
embrace a hodge-podge of infinitesimals AND limits. Thousands of
books, many in finance, treat infinitesimals as if they were
rigorous — and claim that expressions using differentials are
informal. It is no wonder that people are so profoundly confused
when they go on to try to learn stochastic calculus.
Anyway, my three courses, Math 1, Math 2 and Math 3, are my
way of addressing the problem, at least in finance circles.
I’m not hiring, but maybe I have helped you another way.
Kind Regards,
Glyn
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 26
Subject: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Hi Glyn,
You are correct about the standard calculus texts never
making a single mention of infinitesimals, which was my
conclusion after some examination of my own collection of math
books, running at several hundred, not to mention the internet.
But the question you pressed on was what an infinitesimal is.
I did do a little more research, and sure enough the idea of
infinitesimal can be and has been given a rigorous treatment in
non-standard analysis. One mathematician who has done
significant work in this area is Abraham Robinson. A search of
Wikipedia reveals quite a bit about him. If interested, you may
link to
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abraham_Robinson for
further info. Excerpts of the book Non-Standard Analysis by
Abraham Robinson can be seen here. So, there was a historic
period when getting rid of the infinitesimal, as understood at
that time, was the right thing to do. But, Abraham Robinson,
about whose work I know nothing, cannot be ignored off-hand.
So, I ask myself: why do I bother to mention the word
‘infinitesimal’ in my classes? It invariably happens when my
students demand to know at an intuitive level what dx is. As we
have seen, many books so often equate dx with ∆x when ∆x is very
small, which is, strictly speaking, incorrect, but intuitively
helpful, or at least seemingly helpful.
Thanks for the informative exchanges. Good luck with your
endeavors.
Sincerely,
Albert
|
| |
From: Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 26
Subject: Re: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Hi Albert:
Non-standard analysis is what
happened when a cheeky mathematician, Abraham Robinson,
thought it would be clever to reinsert infinitesimals in
mathematics. He quite formally did so, extending the real
numbers to include new constructs called infinitesimals —
much as mathematicians two centuries earlier extended the
real numbers to include imaginary numbers. Robinson defined
his infinitesimal constructs in such a way that he could
then formally reproduce results in calculus using them.
Problems with non-standard analysis
are that
1. It is far more difficult to learn
than calculus. If we ever embraced it, students would have
to first get a Ph.D. in math before they could learn
elementary calculus. This makes non-standard analysis as a
means of making calculus more intuitive akin to throwing the
baby out with the bathwater.
2. It is unnecessary, since calculus
is perfectly fine based on limits.
3. It has produced no meaningful
applications other than to allow frustrated students to
claim that infinitesimals DO EXIST.
You say
"As we have seen, many books so
often equate dx with ∆x when ∆x is very small, which is,
strictly speaking, incorrect, but intuitively helpful, or at
least seemingly helpful."
Why is it incorrect to set dx = ∆x?
Can you give me a rigorous answer ... one that doesn't rely
on infinitesimals (of either the "hand waving" or the
"non-standard analysis" form)?
Glyn
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 26
Subject: Re: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Hi Glyn,
You asked: " Why is it incorrect to set dx = ∆x?"
Here's what I think: No matter how small ∆x is, it is NOT
small enough! So, strictly speaking, it will never do. Granted,
this answer so far is not rigorous.
The problem with the content of our exchanges -- at least
those coming from my side -- is that we have mixed some rigor
with a lot of non-rigorous speech. With this in the backdrop, I
will try to answer your question somewhat more rigorously: Given
the fact that the symbol dx remains undefined up to this point,
the question, such as it is, cannot be answered.
A better approach is that of using the idea of linearization
of the function.
Simply, define the function df as df: RxR ---> R such that
df(x,h)=f'(x)h.
Now, we don't need to bother with infinitesimal, and what
not.
I am curious to know as to how you define dx.
Albert
|
| |
From:
Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 26
Subject: Re: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Hi Albert:
I like this:
> Simply, define the function df as df: RxR ---> R such that
df(x,h)=f'(x)h.
It is rigorous, but you are unsure of yourself, which is why
you introduced h. Should h represent dx, ∆x or something else?
Also, do you intend that df(x,h) represent the more familiar dy,
or do you see these as different?
I will be happy to define dx for you, but let me give you
another chance to do it yourself. Here is a hint. Try defining
∆x first.
Cheers,
Glyn
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 26
Subject: Re: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Hi Glyn,
No, I am not unsure of myself. It is only a matter of
symbolic expediency that I used h instead of dx. The symbol h is
just a variable, just like dx is. Again, not wanting to get into
detailed discussion, you may 'safely' let df and dy represent
the same thing.
Albert
|
| |
From:
Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 26
Subject: Re: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Fair enough: h = dx. You are very close to giving me a
rigorous definition of ∆x and dx. Can you do it, or do you want
me to? - Glyn
|
| |
From: Albert
To: Glyn Holton
Sent: April 26
Subject: Re: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Hi Glyn,
Go right ahead!
Albert
|
| |
From:
Glyn Holton
To: Albert
Sent: April 29
Subject: RE: Infinitesimals and Non-Standard Analysis
Hi Albert:
Go back to your linearization (i.e. slope of a tangent line)
formula.
df(x,h)=f'(x)h
This is linear if we consider x at a fixed point and let h
vary. That means that we are treating x as a constant, h as an
independent variable and df as a dependent variable -- h can
take on any real value, and so can df.
In recent e-mails, you agreed to certain changes in notation,
specifically dy = df and dx = h. People who are still struggling
with the whole infinitesimal business often get a little nervous
when I make a substitution like this because they associate the
terms dy and dx with infinitesimals. They wonder "can we do
this?" Just forget you have ever heard of dy, dx or
infinitesimals before. I am DEFINING dx = h, and your
linearization formula becomes my definition for dy:
dy = f'(x)dx
Now, f’(x) is well defined by the definition of the
derivative, and dx is well defined as an independent variable,
so dy is well defined. Since dx and dy are just plain old
independent and dependent variables that can take on any real
values, I can divide both sides by dx to obtain
dy/dx = f'(x)
For a fixed x, f'(x) is a constant and we see that, although
dx and dy are variables, their ratio is a constant -- no
surprise. This is what your linearization is about.
If you are still uncomfortable with this, let's try a
different approach using ∆x and ∆y. As with our discussion of dx
and dy, consider a fixed point x and let ∆x be an independent
variable. Then ∆y is a dependent variable defined by
∆y = f(x + ∆x) - f(x)
Again, all terms are well defined, so ∆y is well defined. Our
formula is now non-linear, and ∆y represents the exact change in
the function f over the interval (x, x + ∆x).
Compare this to the earlier formula
dy = f'(x)dx
that defines dy as a linear approximation for the change in
the function f over the interval (x, x + dx).
Here is an example. Let f(x) = x^2 and x = 5. The terms ∆x
and dx are independent variables, so we can set them equal to
whatever we like. Let's say ∆x = dx = 3. Then
∆y = f(x + ∆x) - f(x) = f(8) - f(5) = 39
is the exact change in f over the interval (5,8) while
dy = f'(x)dx = (10)(3) = 30
is a linear approximation for the change in f over the same
interval.
Here is a slide from my Financial Math 1 course.
The graph on the right is called Barrow’s Triangle after
Isaac Barrow (1630-1677). I have depicted it using Leibniz’s
notation, but Barrow was a predecessor of both Newton and
Leibniz. Here is something that may surprise you: Barrow was
Newton’s teacher and he also instructed Leibniz in his
mathematical research shortly before Leibniz developed his own
calculus.

In Barrow’s triangle, we set ∆x = dx. We can do this because
they are independent variables. We see that ∆y indicates the
exact change in y over the interval (x, x + ∆x) while dy
indicates a linear approximation of the change in y over that
same interval.
There you have it: a rigorous definition of dx and dy that
doesn’t involve infinitesimals. It doesn’t even require that dy
or dx be “small.” Furthermore, it is profoundly more simple
(i.e. intuitive) than anything related to infinitesimals.
If you make Barrow’s triangle your starting point, stochastic
calculus is easy to learn. This is important because there are
thousands of quantitative professionals who struggle with
stochastic calculus. The problem is that, confused by
infinitesimals, they don’t really understand calculus. If you
really understand the basics -- calculus and probability --
stochastic calculus is easy.
Kind Regards,
Glyn
|
Glyn A. Holton
|
|