Mastering the Art of Calculus: Spells and Techniques from the Spell Book

The calculus spell book is a powerful tool for students studying calculus. It contains a collection of formulas, techniques, and strategies that can be used to solve a wide variety of calculus problems. Just like a magician's spell book, it allows students to perform seemingly magical calculations and find solutions to complex problems. Within the pages of the calculus spell book, students can find formulas for differentiation and integration, as well as techniques for solving differential equations. These formulas and techniques can be used to solve problems involving rates of change, optimization, and curve sketching, among other things. In addition to formulas and techniques, the calculus spell book also provides step-by-step instructions on how to use them.

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.

In addition to formulas and techniques, the calculus spell book also provides step-by-step instructions on how to use them. This can be particularly helpful for students who are learning calculus for the first time and need some guidance on how to approach different types of problems. One of the biggest advantages of the calculus spell book is that it consolidates a lot of information into a single resource.

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?

Rather than having to search through textbooks or lecture notes for the right formula or technique, students can simply consult the spell book and quickly find what they need. This can save a lot of time and frustration, especially during exams or when working on timed assignments. Of course, like any tool, the calculus spell book is only as useful as the person using it. While it provides a valuable resource for solving problems, students still need to have a good understanding of the underlying concepts and principles of calculus in order to use the spell book effectively. It is not a substitute for understanding, but rather a supplement to aid in problem solving. In conclusion, the calculus spell book is a valuable resource for students studying calculus. It provides a collection of formulas, techniques, and strategies that can help solve a wide variety of calculus problems. With its step-by-step instructions and consolidated information, it can save students time and frustration. However, it should be used as a supplement to understanding, rather than a replacement for it..

Reviews for "Master the Craft of Calculus: Unleashing the Power of the Spell Book"

1. Emily - 2 stars - I was really disappointed with "Calculus spell book". I was hoping it would provide a comprehensive guide to understanding calculus, but instead, it was filled with unnecessary jargon and confusing explanations. The author seemed more interested in showing off their own knowledge rather than actually teaching the subject. I found myself constantly referring to other resources to understand the concepts properly. Overall, I wouldn't recommend this book to anyone looking to learn calculus.

2. Mark - 1 star - "Calculus spell book" was a complete waste of money for me. The explanations were convoluted and difficult to follow, and the examples provided were not helpful at all. I struggled to grasp even the basic concepts, and the book failed to provide any real-life applications or practical examples. I ended up having to rely on YouTube tutorials and online forums to understand calculus better. Save your money and look for a different resource if you're serious about learning calculus.

3. Sarah - 2 stars - As someone with a limited background in mathematics, I found "Calculus spell book" extremely daunting. The author assumes a certain level of prior knowledge that I simply did not possess. I didn't feel like the book was beginner-friendly at all. The explanations were dense and filled with complex formulas without much explanation of the underlying concepts. I struggled to keep up and ended up feeling overwhelmed. I would recommend this book only for those already well-versed in calculus, but for beginners, I suggest looking for a more accessible resource.

4. Mike - 1 star - I regret purchasing "Calculus spell book". The author's writing style was dry and uninspiring, making the already complex topic of calculus even more tedious to understand. The lack of engaging examples or real-world applications didn't help either. I found myself barely making it through a few chapters before giving up completely. If you're looking for an enjoyable and interactive way to learn calculus, this is definitely not the book for you.

The Power of Symbols: Decoding the Calculus Spell Book for Advanced Problem-Solving