October 21st, 2018, 08:16 PM  #21  
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 905 Thanks: 351 
I'm trying to understand your reasoning man, I really am. I just don't seem to get it. Quote:
And how do you know that the complex numbers are consistent? How would you show it?  
October 21st, 2018, 09:12 PM  #22  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,696 Thanks: 2681 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
We don't do that with the complex numbers. Where we require a real number answer, we demand that the imaginary part of the solution be zero  we don't just discard whatever it happens to be. I don't know that they are. You asked if I believe them to be. Nobody has yet discovered an inconsistency that I've heard of. If I understand Gödel correctly, proving it to be consistent may very well be impossible. Perhaps a contingent proof (they are consistent if the reals are) would be possible.  
October 21st, 2018, 09:49 PM  #23 
Senior Member Joined: Oct 2009 Posts: 905 Thanks: 351 
My apologies for being unclear. Whenever I say consistent, I always mean relative consistent. Meaning: consistent if ZF is consistent. That's the best we can do for many systems. So with this clarification in mind, what do you think about the consistency of the complex numbers and the hyperreals? Are they consistent? I also don't really see what this has to do with "discarding infinitesimal parts". I'll think about it some more to see if I can make sense of it. 
October 21st, 2018, 10:13 PM  #24 
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 680 Thanks: 454 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics 
As someone who only has passing familiarity with hyperreals, I can say I've never been motivated to bother any serious study since they don't appear to equip you with any tools which aren't already straightforward applications of limits. Can you (anyone) give an example of some application, technique, or concept which is only possible or significantly easier/more powerful/etc when using infinitesimals? 
October 21st, 2018, 10:34 PM  #25  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,696 Thanks: 2681 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
\begin{align} f'(x) &= \frac{f(x+\epsilon)  f(x)}{\epsilon} \\ &= \frac{(x^2 + 2\epsilon x + \epsilon^2)  x^2}{\epsilon} \\ &= \frac{2\epsilon x + \epsilon^2}{\epsilon} \\ &= 2x + \epsilon \end{align} Now we discard the infinitesimal part of the answer to get the derivative in the reals. Thus $$f'(x)=2x$$ I've talked about consistency  I don't think I can make myself more clear.  
October 21st, 2018, 10:50 PM  #26  
Senior Member Joined: Sep 2016 From: USA Posts: 680 Thanks: 454 Math Focus: Dynamical systems, analytic function theory, numerics  Quote:
From this, your equation actually simplifies from applying this identify and simply cancelling as \[\frac{2 \epsilon x + \epsilon^2}{\epsilon} = \frac{2 \epsilon x}{\epsilon} = 2x \]  
October 21st, 2018, 11:07 PM  #27  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,424 Thanks: 759  Quote:
BUT in math you never know what obscure curiosity will turn out to be important. If tomorrow morning professor soandso in Helskinki proves P = NP using nonstandard analysis, overnight everyone will care about it. Till that happens, it's just a technical curiousity, but a very interesting one. Also Professor Tao is using it to solve notational problems in higher analysis. Tao's one of the smartest mathematicians in the world and has won the Fields medal. Infinitesimals may come back into style. That's a philosophical point too. It's true that once a theorem is proved, it's proved forever. But whether people care about that theorem is a matter of trend, fashion, and politics. Ideas go in and out of style. Infinitesimals being a great example.  
October 21st, 2018, 11:15 PM  #28  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,696 Thanks: 2681 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
\begin{align} f'(x) &= \frac{f(x+\epsilon)  f(x)}{\epsilon} \\ &= \frac{\sqrt{x + \epsilon}  \sqrt{x}}{\epsilon} \\ &= \frac{\big(\sqrt{x+\epsilon}\sqrt{x}\big)\big(\sqrt{x+\epsilon}+\sqrt{x}\big)} {\epsilon\big(\sqrt{x+\epsilon} + \sqrt{x}\big)} \\ &= \frac{(x+\epsilon)x}{\epsilon\big(\sqrt{x+\epsilon} + \sqrt{x}\big)} \\ &= \frac{\epsilon}{\epsilon\big(\sqrt{x+\epsilon} + \sqrt{x}\big)} \\ &= \frac{1}{\sqrt{x+\epsilon}+\sqrt{x}} \end{align} You might say that we should use a Taylor series for $\sqrt{x+\epsilon} = \sqrt{x}\sqrt{1+\frac \epsilon x}$, but whether you do or not, we are discarding terms in $\epsilon$ or $\sqrt{\epsilon}$, so it's not only larger powers of $\epsilon$ that disappear when we simplify to get $$f'(x) = \frac{1}{2\sqrt x}$$ Edit: I suppose that if you use the Taylor series before cancelling, you might be able to argue that only terms of $\epsilon^2$ and greater are disappearing. But I'm not happy with the idea of using Taylor series to determine derivatives anyway  it seems rather circular. Last edited by v8archie; October 21st, 2018 at 11:53 PM.  
October 21st, 2018, 11:16 PM  #29  
Senior Member Joined: Aug 2012 Posts: 2,424 Thanks: 759  Quote:
* First, there are two different levels or approaches to the hyperreals. One is via calculus, for example Keisler's famous book. In that approach, the technical construction of the hyperreals is not even discussed or is put off to the end of the course. It's perfectly analogous to the way basic calculus books assume the properties of the real numbers and never mention Dedekind cuts. Calculus students don't need to know how specialists construct the reals within set theory. Likewise students of nonstandard calculus don't need to know the technical construction, which is way beyond the level of calculus. So it's unfair of me to hit you over the head with ultrafilters. In fact I haven't spent much time studying nonstandard calculus, so you probably understand that part of it better than I do. I think you must have read a nonstandard calculus book so we're all kind of talking apples and oranges. You don't need to know anything about the construction to work with the hyperreals. * The second point is that when you said we assume the hyperreals and I said no, we construct it, there is a kernel of truth in what you say. To construct the hyperreals we need a settheoretic gadget called a nonprincipal ultrafilter on the natural numbers. And you can't prove that such a thing exists in ZF. You need a weak form of the axiom of choice. So yes, there is a bit of pulling a rabbit out of a hat if you regard AC with suspicion. But in modern math AC is assumed. There is no "controversy." It gives better theorems and cleans up infinite cardinalities so we use it. Hope some of this made sense. Last edited by Maschke; October 21st, 2018 at 11:21 PM.  
October 21st, 2018, 11:26 PM  #30  
Math Team Joined: Dec 2013 From: Colombia Posts: 7,696 Thanks: 2681 Math Focus: Mainly analysis and algebra  Quote:
Are you saying that the Hyperreals weren't constructed purely to formalise Newton/Leibnitz early attempts at calculus? Or just that the construction can be made more rigorously that just assuming the existence of infinitesimals? If the first is true, was there any particular reason for doing it? Also, does your use of that particular quote at the top of your post mean that you can shed some light on the consistency question? Last edited by v8archie; October 21st, 2018 at 11:30 PM.  

Tags 
calculus, foundations, infinite, infinitesimal 
Thread Tools  
Display Modes  

Similar Threads  
Thread  Thread Starter  Forum  Replies  Last Post 
Infinitesimal  shaharhada  Calculus  8  October 20th, 2018 07:53 AM 
Infinitesimal  shaharhada  Algebra  9  November 10th, 2017 10:57 AM 
Calculus Foundations (Leibniz and Berkeley)  bt359  Calculus  1  November 15th, 2013 12:39 PM 
Infinite set mapping to infinitesimal interval  fjingram  Real Analysis  4  July 30th, 2010 05:07 AM 
help with the calculus of infinite sequence  1210  Real Analysis  3  September 20th, 2007 09:06 AM 