Misplaced Pages

Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal Approach: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 09:25, 15 January 2015 editTkuvho (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,424 edits →Reception← Previous edit Revision as of 09:26, 15 January 2015 edit undoTkuvho (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers9,424 edits →ReceptionNext edit →
Line 30: Line 30:
| journal = ] | journal = ]
| pages = | pages =
| title = Proofs and Retributions, Or: Why Sarah Can't Take Limits | title = Proofs and Retributions, Or: Why Sarah Can't ''Take'' Limits
| volume = | volume =
| year = }}.</ref> see ]. ] and Hausner published a detailed favorable review, as did ] and ].{{sfn|Davis|Hausner|1978}}{{sfn|Blass|1978}}{{sfn|Madison|Stroyan|1977}} Keisler's student K.&nbsp;Sullivan,<ref>http://www.math.wisc.edu/oldhome/directories/alumni/1974.htm</ref> as part of her Ph.D. thesis, performed a controlled experiment involving 5 schools which found ''Elementary Calculus'' to have advantages over the standard method of teaching calculus.{{sfn|Keisler|2011}}{{sfn|Sullivan|1976}} Despite the benefits described by Sullivan, the vast majority of mathematicians have not adopted infinitesimal methods in their teaching.{{sfn|Tall|1980}} Recently, Katz & Katz{{sfn|Katz|Katz|2010}} give a positive account of a calculus course based on Keisler's book. O'Donovan also described his experience teaching calculus using infinitesimals. His initial point of view was positive, {{sfn|O'Donovan|Kimber|2006}} but later he found pedagogical difficulties with approach to non-standard calculus taken by this text and others.{{sfn|O'Donovan|2007}} | year = }}.</ref> see ]. ] and Hausner published a detailed favorable review, as did ] and ].{{sfn|Davis|Hausner|1978}}{{sfn|Blass|1978}}{{sfn|Madison|Stroyan|1977}} Keisler's student K.&nbsp;Sullivan,<ref>http://www.math.wisc.edu/oldhome/directories/alumni/1974.htm</ref> as part of her Ph.D. thesis, performed a controlled experiment involving 5 schools which found ''Elementary Calculus'' to have advantages over the standard method of teaching calculus.{{sfn|Keisler|2011}}{{sfn|Sullivan|1976}} Despite the benefits described by Sullivan, the vast majority of mathematicians have not adopted infinitesimal methods in their teaching.{{sfn|Tall|1980}} Recently, Katz & Katz{{sfn|Katz|Katz|2010}} give a positive account of a calculus course based on Keisler's book. O'Donovan also described his experience teaching calculus using infinitesimals. His initial point of view was positive, {{sfn|O'Donovan|Kimber|2006}} but later he found pedagogical difficulties with approach to non-standard calculus taken by this text and others.{{sfn|O'Donovan|2007}}

Revision as of 09:26, 15 January 2015

Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesimal approach is a textbook by H. Jerome Keisler. The subtitle alludes to the infinitesimal numbers of the hyperreal number system of Abraham Robinson and is sometimes given as An approach using infinitesimals. The book is available freely online and is currently published by Dover.

Textbook

Keisler's textbook is based on Robinson's construction of the hyperreal numbers. Keisler also published a companion book, Foundations of Infinitesimal Calculus, for instructors which covers the foundational material in more depth.

Keisler defines all basic notions of the calculus such as continuity, derivative, and integral using infinitesimals. The usual definitions in terms of ε-δ techniques are provided at the end of Chapter 5 to enable a transition to a standard sequence.

In his textbook, Keisler used the pedagogical technique of an infinite-magnification microscope, so as to represent graphically, distinct hyperreal numbers infinitely close to each other. Similarly, an infinite-resolution telescope is used to represent infinite numbers.

When one examines a curve, say the graph of ƒ, under a magnifying glass, its curvature decreases proportionally to the magnification power of the lens. Similarly, an infinite-magnification microscope will transform an infinitesimal arc of a graph of ƒ, into a straight line, up to an infinitesimal error (only visible by applying a higher-magnification "microscope"). The derivative of ƒ is then the (standard part of the) slope of that line (see figure).

The standard part function "rounds off" a finite hyperreal to the nearest real number. The "infinitesimal microscope" is used to view an infinitesimal neighborhood of a standard real.

Thus the microscope is used as a device in explaining the derivative.

Reception

G. R. Blackley remarked in a letter to Prindle, Weber & Schmidt, concerning Elementary Calculus: An Approach Using Infinitesimals, "Such problems as might arise with the book will be political. It is revolutionary. Revolutions are seldom welcomed by the established party, although revolutionaries often are."

The book was reviewed by Errett Bishop, noted for his work in constructive mathematics. Bishop's review was vitriolic and was the subject of a recent dramatic skit; see Criticism of non-standard analysis. Martin Davis and Hausner published a detailed favorable review, as did Andreas Blass and Keith Stroyan. Keisler's student K. Sullivan, as part of her Ph.D. thesis, performed a controlled experiment involving 5 schools which found Elementary Calculus to have advantages over the standard method of teaching calculus. Despite the benefits described by Sullivan, the vast majority of mathematicians have not adopted infinitesimal methods in their teaching. Recently, Katz & Katz give a positive account of a calculus course based on Keisler's book. O'Donovan also described his experience teaching calculus using infinitesimals. His initial point of view was positive, but later he found pedagogical difficulties with approach to non-standard calculus taken by this text and others.

Hrbacek writes that the definitions of continuity, derivative, and integral implicitly must be grounded in the ε-δ method in Robinson's theoretical framework, in order to extend definitions to include non-standard values of the inputs, claiming that the hope that non-standard calculus could be done without ε-δ methods could not be realized in full. Błaszczyk et al. detail the usefulness of microcontinuity in developing a transparent definition of uniform continuity, and characterize Hrbacek's criticism as a "dubious lament".

Transfer principle

Between the first and second edition of the Elementary Calculus, much of the theoretical material that was in the first chapter was moved to the epilogue at the end of the book, including the theoretical groundwork of non-standard analysis.

In the second edition Keisler introduces the extension principle and the transfer principle in the following form:

Every real statement that holds for one or more particular real functions holds for the hyperreal natural extensions of these functions.

Keisler then gives a few examples of real statements to which the principle applies:

  • Closure law for addition: for any x and y, the sum x + y is defined.
  • Commutative law for addition: x + y = y + x.
  • A rule for order: if 0 < x < y then 0 < 1/y < 1/x.
  • Division by zero is never allowed: x/0 is undefined.
  • An algebraic identity: ( x − y ) 2 = x 2 − 2 x y + y 2 {\displaystyle (x-y)^{2}=x^{2}-2xy+y^{2}} .
  • A trigonometric identity: sin 2 ⁡ x + cos 2 ⁡ x = 1 {\displaystyle \sin ^{2}x+\cos ^{2}x=1} .
  • A rule for logarithms: If x > 0 and y > 0, then log 10 ⁡ ( x y ) = log 10 ⁡ x + log 10 ⁡ y {\displaystyle \log _{10}(xy)=\log _{10}x+\log _{10}y} .

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Keisler 2011.
  2. Sullivan, Kathleen; Mathematical Education: The Teaching of Elementary Calculus Using the Nonstandard Analysis Approach. Amer. Math. Monthly 83 (1976), no. 5, 370–375.
  3. Joseph Dauben (1996) Arguments, logic and proof: mathematics, logic and the infinite. History of mathematics and education: ideas and experiences (Essen, 1992), 113–148, Stud. Wiss. Soz. Bildungsgesch. Math., 11, Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, G"ottingen.
  4. Kanovei, Vladimir; Katz, Karin U.; Katz, Mikhail G.; Schaps, Mary, "Proofs and Retributions, Or: Why Sarah Can't Take Limits", Foundations of Science, doi:10.1007/s10699-013-9340-0.
  5. Davis & Hausner 1978.
  6. Blass 1978.
  7. Madison & Stroyan 1977.
  8. http://www.math.wisc.edu/oldhome/directories/alumni/1974.htm
  9. Sullivan 1976.
  10. Tall 1980.
  11. Katz & Katz 2010.
  12. O'Donovan & Kimber 2006.
  13. O'Donovan 2007.
  14. Hrbacek 2007.
  15. Błaszczyk, Piotr; Katz, Mikhail; Sherry, David (2012), "Ten misconceptions from the history of analysis and their debunking", Foundations of Science, arXiv:1202.4153, doi:10.1007/s10699-012-9285-8

References

Blass writes: "I suspect that many mathematicians harbor, somewhere in the back of their minds, the formula ∫ ( d x ) 2 + ( d y ) 2 {\displaystyle \int {\sqrt {(dx)^{2}+(dy)^{2}}}} for arc length (and quickly factor out dx before writing it down)" (p. 35).
"Often, as in the examples above, the nonstandard definition of a concept is simpler than the standard definition (both intuitively simpler and simpler in a technical sense, such as quantifiers over lower types or fewer alternations of quantifiers)" (p. 37).
"The relative simplicity of the nonstandard definitions of some concepts of elementary analysis suggests a pedagogical application in freshman calculus. One could make use of the students' intuitive ideas about infinitesimals (which are usually very vague, but so are their ideas about real numbers) to develop calculus on a nonstandard basis" (p. 38).

External links

Infinitesimals
History
Related branches
Formalizations
Individual concepts
Mathematicians
Textbooks

Categories: