The Influence of Amulet: How the Book Anthology Shaped the Fantasy Genre

The Amulet Book Anthology is a collection of novels written by Kazu Kibuishi. It is a series of graphic novels that combines elements of fantasy, adventure, and mystery. The series follows the story of two siblings, Emily and Navin, who uncover an underground world filled with strange creatures and ancient technology. The series begins with the book "The Stonekeeper", where Emily and Navin move to a new house with their mother after their father's death. While exploring the house, Emily discovers a magical amulet that gives her great power, but also puts her in danger. When their mother is kidnapped by a powerful enemy, the siblings embark on a quest to save her and uncover the secrets of the amulet.

defnitely voodoo. famous religious figures even tried to expose Newton as a heathen mathematician in the old days. fortunately he was not burned at the stake.

However, since the net effect is the same as treating them as entitities that are manipualable, if that s a word, that is what is taught when it is the ends and not the means that matter. Imagine my amazement and relief when I learned about a class called real analysis where we would start with the axioms for the real numbers and build everything up from there.

When their mother is kidnapped by a powerful enemy, the siblings embark on a quest to save her and uncover the secrets of the amulet. Throughout the series, Emily and Navin encounter various allies and enemies, including a talking robot, a giant bunny, and a shadowy creature known as the Elf King. They travel through mystical landscapes and face numerous challenges as they try to unravel the mysteries of the amulet and rescue their mother.

Calculus: math or voodoo?

In summary, the conversation discusses the confusion and lack of understanding of calculus, specifically in regards to the use of notation and concepts such as dy/dx and infinitesimals. The participants suggest that this confusion is often due to inadequate teaching and a lack of a rigorous foundation in the subject. They also mention the use of differential forms as a more concrete approach to understanding calculus. However, they acknowledge that for most students, the traditional approach of using dx and dy as small distances may be more intuitive.

loom91

I'm sure I'm wrong, but calculus appears voodoo to me. I can usually get the right answers, but it all looks like a castle of clouds to me. There's no internallogic, things are forced into place to make them work. In particular, dy/dx is reffered to and defined as an operator d/dx acting on y, but then it is frequently treatted as an actual quotent of two actual algebraic quantities, particularly in integral calculus and solution of differential equations. What sort of black magic is this? Thanks.

• State-estimation method allows for efficient forecasts without details of underlying model
• Flipped coins found not to be as fair as thought
• Mathematical bedtime stories may build better mathematical memory

chroot

The reason it's confusing is because you're being taught by teachers who are either (a) lazy or (b) incompetent.

It is unfortunate that calculus can be taught almost like it's black magic -- you put this symbol here, put that symbol there, and you get the right answer. It is, however, a rigorous subject that does not actually include any "black magic."

Once you reach the level of differential forms and real analysis, all of the "black magic" features of calculus will be revealed as very strict, sensible constructions. "dx," for example, is actually a one-form, though no Calc I teacher will ever explain that to you.

CRGreathouse

It seems that way because you are given tools to work with without explanations. Real Analysis covers the "why"s in muc more detail, but that's usually a senior-level course in college.

Daverz

Try to find the little book Gravity by George Gamow. It will give you a more physical feel for calculus using the original application. Also, there are some visual calculus tutorials on the net, just google "calculus".

As for the infinitisemals, I don't know what to tell you. They are never put on a solid foundation in the typical calculus courses, but you'll still see them used all the time in Physics, and Physicists are expected to pick it up by osmosis. So you still need to play with the simple dy/dx picture of little infinitesimal triangles, or at least Physicists do.

The infinitesimals were given a rigourous foundation in the last century. There's an entire calculus book using infinitesimals, with all the usual applications, listed at the bottom of that page, and Dover has a couple short books on the subject. But I don't know if that would help or just be a distraction for you at this point.

matt grime

chroot

In fact, it's much more concrete to approach calculus as an application of differential forms, never once referring to dx and dy as infinitesimals.

Daverz

I can see how differential forms make sense out of

but it's not clear to me how they make sense out of

as an actual ratio rather than just notation that looks like a ratio but isn't. That's what non-standard analysis does.

Also, there's a huge literature out there that makes naive use of infinitesimals. Pure math students may be lucky enough not to encounter it in modern textbooks, but students in the sciences are not so lucky.

loom91

So dy/dx is better treated as a ratio of two "1-forms" rather than as an operator acting on y? That means that the definition we use for first-principle calculations of derivative would have to be abandoned. Our high-school course in calculus is particularly lacking in rigour. We learn the applications of single variable real calculus up to second-order differential equations, but most of it is application of formulas given without proof (for example the limit theorems and standard limits).

In physics, we rely on intuition to get a right answer treating dx as an infinitesimal change, but because of the lack of a properly understood foundation it's all like groping in the dark and it can get very confusing in problems requiring complicated use of calculus.

I've heard about 1-forms before. What actually are these and how do they relate to the definition of derivative we are taught? Thanks.

Daverz

You can get a free book on forms here:

The author is a forum member.

Daverz

I don't believe it's meaningful to divide 1-forms that way.

That means that the definition we use for first-principle calculations of derivative would have to be abandoned.

f'(x) = lim (f(x+h) - f(x))/h h->0

definition of the derivitive.

Our high-school course in calculus is particularly lacking in rigour. We learn the applications of single variable real calculus up to second-order differential equations, but most of it is application of formulas given without proof (for example the limit theorems and standard limits).

I don't think that's a bad approach. It can take some mathematical maturity to really "get" the idea of limits.

In physics, we rely on intuition to get a right answer treating dx as an infinitesimal change, but because of the lack of a properly understood foundation it's all like groping in the dark and it can get very confusing in problems requiring complicated use of calculus.

And wait until you get to how variational problems are traditionally handled in Physics (e.g. in Goldstein). That can really be confusing.

Office_Shredder

Actually, using dx and dy as just really small distances is a great intuitive way of dealing with physics

coalquay404

I think that you're all trying to over-analyse the OP's problem. Differential calculus of functions is *not* easily discussed in terms of differential forms. In fact, a moment's thought should be enough to convince you that any expression of the form

cannot be reliably interpreted in terms of differential forms. Differential calculus of this type is the study of the limiting behaviour of the rate of change of functions -- this is analysis, not differential geometry.

I do agree though that anybody who has trouble understanding calculus is most probably being taught by a lazy teacher.

Mickey

I don't think that's a bad approach. It can take some mathematical maturity to really "get" the idea of limits.

loom91

I will be trying out that linked book now.

By the way, I think I 'get' the epsilon-delta definition of limits and the infinitesimal treatment in Physics appears rather forced and illogical to me.

In any case, what is dy/dx really if not the ratio of two 1-forms?

matt grime

If y is a function of x then dy/dx is the limit of y(x+e)/y(x) as e tends to zero. That is what it 'really' is, and I imagine what you already know. And if you're still wondering how it can be 'treated as a fraction' when doing integrals, then just think of the following example (latex is still broken I think)

if g(y)dy/dx = f(x), then integrating both sides gives wrt x

int g(y)(dy/dx)dx = int f(x)dx

but the LHS is just the same as int g(y)dy by the chain rule.

mathwonk

defnitely voodoo. famous religious figures even tried to expose Newton as a heathen mathematician in the old days. fortunately he was not burned at the stake.

loom91

You mean that the fraction thingy is just a notation? No meaning is assigned to the intermediate steps in the solution of a differential equation where we manipulate the dys and dxs separately?

matt grime

No meaning needs to be assigned to that treatment. The fact is that all you're doing is a omitting some steps, in an attempt to make it intuitively easy to solve the DE. There is no need to manipulate the dys and dxs separately at all. However, since the net effect is the same as treating them as entitities that are manipualable, if that's a word, that is what is taught when it is the ends and not the means that matter. Not something I condone, by the way.

All this talk of infinitesimals, and 1-forms are rigorous ways of justifying this treatment, but at the level we're talking about here there is no need to use it.

nocturnal

And if you're still wondering how it can be 'treated as a fraction' when doing integrals, then just think of the following example (latex is still broken I think)

if g(y)dy/dx = f(x), then integrating both sides gives wrt x

int g(y)(dy/dx)dx = int f(x)dx

but the LHS is just the same as int g(y)dy by the chain rule.

No meaning needs to be assigned to that treatment. The fact is that all you're doing is a omitting some steps, in an attempt to make it intuitively easy to solve the DE. There is no need to manipulate the dys and dxs separately at all. However, since the net effect is the same as treating them as entitities that are manipualable, if that's a word, that is what is taught when it is the ends and not the means that matter. Not something I condone, by the way.

All this talk of infinitesimals, and 1-forms are rigorous ways of justifying this treatment, but at the level we're talking about here there is no need to use it.

Nicely put. I wish my teacher had mentioned this when I was taking intro to calc. This simple fact was the source of a lot of confusion and it took me a better part of a year to figure this out for myself. However, I don't think my math teacher knew too much about math. When asked if I would ever encounter a class where calculus would be put on a rigorous foundation and everything would be proved (beyond the brief hand-wavy proofs that were given in the text) I was told no, that this intro class was all there was. Imagine my amazement (and relief) when I learned about a class called real analysis where we would start with the axioms for the real numbers and build everything up from there.

I am also surprised that many textbooks introduce the methods "separation of variables" and "u-substitution" without any mention of the chain rule, but rather show that we can manipulate dx's and dy's after we're explicity told that dx and dy have no meaning on their own and that dy/dx is not to be treated as a fraction!

Anyways, I empathize with the OP and suggest that if your current text lacks the rigour you desire, you might try picking up a better one such as the ones written by Spivak, or Apostol, or even an intro analysis text.

You mean that the fraction thingy is just a notation? No meaning is assigned to the intermediate steps in the solution of a differential equation where we manipulate the dys and dxs separately?

The Amulet Book Anthology is praised for its captivating storytelling, richly imagined world, and stunning artwork. Kibuishi's illustrations bring the story to life, immersing readers in a visually stunning and vibrant world. The series addresses themes of family, loss, courage, and friendship. It explores the bonds between siblings and the power of love and determination. Each book in the anthology builds upon the previous installments, weaving a complex and engrossing narrative that keeps readers hooked until the end. The Amulet Book Anthology has garnered critical acclaim and a dedicated fan base. It has won several awards, including the Goodreads Choice Award for Best Graphic Novels & Comics. The series has also been praised for its diverse and relatable characters, its exploration of ethical dilemmas, and its ability to engage readers of all ages. Overall, the Amulet Book Anthology is a thrilling and visually stunning graphic novel series that captivates readers with its epic storytelling and mesmerizing artwork. It is a must-read for fans of fantasy and adventure, and a testament to the power of imagination and resilience..

Reviews for "Amulet at a Glance: A Comprehensive Overview of the Book Anthology"

1. Sarah - 1 star - I was really disappointed with the "Amulet book anthology". The stories were predictable and lacked depth. The characters were one-dimensional and I couldn't connect with any of them. The writing style felt forced and the pacing was off. Overall, I found the anthology to be boring and unoriginal.

2. Mark - 2 stars - While I enjoyed some of the stories in the "Amulet book anthology", there were too many inconsistencies and plot holes for me to fully enjoy it. The world-building felt incomplete and the transitions between stories were choppy. Additionally, the endings of several stories left me unsatisfied and wanting more closure. Overall, I felt that the anthology had potential, but it fell short in execution.

3. Emily - 2.5 stars - I was really looking forward to reading the "Amulet book anthology" as I'm a fan of the series, but I was left underwhelmed. The stories felt disconnected and lacked a cohesive theme. Some of the stories were interesting, but many felt rushed and unfinished. I wish there had been more depth and exploration of the Amulet universe. Unfortunately, this anthology didn't live up to my expectations.

The Fascinating World of Amulet: An In-depth Look at the Book Anthology