Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

If i am not mistaken differential is defined like this (please correct me if i am in any way wrong):

If we take infinitesimally small part of a function changes become smaller and we rename them accordingly $\Delta x \rightarrow dx$ and $\Delta y \rightarrow dy$. Than we can define a rate of change (linear coefficient) $k$ like $$ \begin{split} \underbrace{k = \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}}_{\text{for bigger changes}} \underrightarrow{~~~\scriptsize as~changes~get~smaller~~~} k &=\frac{dy}{dx}\\ \end{split} $$ But we also know that $k$ equals a derivative $\frac{dx}{dy}$ hence: $$ \begin{split} \underbrace{\frac{dx}{dy}}_{derivative~-~do~not~sepparate}\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! &=\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\!\! \!\!\!\!\!\!\!\overbrace{\frac{dy}{dx}}^{rates~of~change~-~can~be~sepparated}\\ \end{split} $$ And now we separate rates of change while we must not separate derivative right? $$ \boxed{dy = \frac{dy}{dx}\, dx} $$

Now comes my real question. If i have a definite integral for example: $$ \int\limits_{0}^{t} \frac{dx}{dt} a \!\!\!\!\!\!\underbrace{dt}_{belongs~to\int\limits_{0}^{t}} $$

I can see that last $dt$ is part of an integral notation and cant just be moved right? Soo Why do some authors treat it like it is an ordinary fraction (cancel out the $dt$) and use this assumption to change even integration limits like this:

$$ \int\limits_{0}^{t} \frac{dx}{dt} a \,\,dt = \int\limits_{0}^{x} a \, \, dx $$

I would like to clear this up in my head once and for all.

share|improve this question
    
How do you know that k equals to a derivative dx/dy? It is wrong. –  Occupy Gezi Mar 22 '13 at 0:27
    
They thought us that in hischool... maybee it is wrong but untill someone provides better explaination i ll stick to it. –  71GA Mar 22 '13 at 0:29
    
Did you check your other question? –  Occupy Gezi Mar 22 '13 at 0:32
1  
Integration by substitution.. –  Halil Duru Mar 22 '13 at 0:45
    
@Halil Duru Could you please provide an anwser? –  71GA Mar 22 '13 at 7:33

2 Answers 2

Well , we have chain rule in differentiation and its counterpart integration by substitution.

These are theorems that require proof.So what you do here is not cancelling in algebra.But in

effect , it seems like you just cancel them which confuses you..

share|improve this answer

I had the same problem with this when I began learning calculus. I was told that the $dt$ in an integral was simply notational and I couldn't understand how my teachers told me that they "cancel out". Basically, the thing which you put in a box, $dy = \frac{dy}{dx}\, dx$, only really makes sense in terms of integrals.

What I mean is that

$\int dy = \int\frac{dy}{dx}\, dx$

by the chain rule, so as a short hand we sometimes write

$dy = \frac{dy}{dx}\, dx$

with the understanding that we have not defined some algebra of infitesimal quantities - we're just using a shorthand.


Also, the derivative is more commonly defined as

$\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\delta x\to0} \frac{y(x + \delta x) - y(x)}{\delta x}$

which, if you think about it, is intuitively similar to what you wrote.

share|improve this answer

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.