4
$\begingroup$

Preface: The following question comes from an expression seen in a biophysics paper published in Nature protocols.

I'm aware that in pure mathematical notation $\delta$ is never used in the context of differential equations, however, I have an expression with the following structure;

$$\frac{\delta x}{\delta y} = G(x)$$

Where G is a function which depends on $x$.

Rather than being a differential equation, I'm assuming this is a (somewhat misleading) way of looking at non-infinitesimal change. In the legend the following text appears

"$\delta x/ \delta y$ is the rate of change of ellipticity at any time t"

But in the original paper's context this $dt$ is likely to be value equal to or greater than 10 ms - i.e. this may not hold true as $\delta t \rightarrow 0$. This suggests that treating the expression as a differential equation would be inappropriate. Any thoughts/comments would be appreciated (even if it's just a 'yup - makes sense').

$\endgroup$
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ yup - makes sense. $\endgroup$ – Stephen Montgomery-Smith Dec 27 '13 at 19:04
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ It would greatly help if you provided a link to the paper in question. $\endgroup$ – AlexR Dec 27 '13 at 19:04
1
$\begingroup$

Infinitesimal rate of change is always a mathematical abstraction. Even for a simple physics problem, like the motion of a free falling stone, we encounter limitation of the model as $\delta t\to 0$. At small enough scale, the position and velocity of the stone are not well-defined: the stone is not a point, its molecules move around, quantum effects become noticeable... Any observed rate of change is not instantaneous; it is the mean rate of change over some period of time $\delta t>0$. One may still say "rate of change at time $t_0$" instead of the longer "mean rate of change over some time interval of small length $\delta t$ containing $t_0$". As long as the rate of change does not change much within the $\delta t$ interval, this is a reasonable thing to say. And we do use differential equations to model physical processes, and the models perform quite well in the setting of classical mechanics.

So, I would not say that treating equation (7) as a differential equation is inappropriate just because the rate of change hasn't been measured at time intervals $\delta _t<0.01$. If one can somehow solve it as a differential equation, the result could be used to predict the behavior of $[\theta]_t$. And if the prediction diverges from reality too much, one will look for reasons why.

After all, predictions based on models are not theorems. Nobody can prove a theorem about proteins; theorems concern mathematical objects, which proteins are not.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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