Comment on UwU brat mathematician behavior

• Zagorath@aussie.zone ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

  You’re misunderstanding the post. Yes, the reality of maths is that the integral is an operator. But the post talks about how “dx can be treated as an [operand]”. And this is true, in many (but not all) circumstances.

  ∫(dy/dx)dx = ∫dy = y

  Or the chain rule:

  (dz/dy)(dy/dx) = dz/dx

  In both of these cases, dx or dy behave like operands, since we can “cancel” them through division. This isn’t rigorous maths, but it’s a frequently-useful shorthand.

  source

  • Chrobin@discuss.tchncs.de ⁨2⁩ ⁨days⁩ ago

    I do understand it differently, but I don’t think I misunderstood. I think what they meant is the physicist notation I’m (as a physicist) all too familiar with:

    ∫ f(x) dx = ∫ dx f(x)

    In this case, because f(x) is the operand and ∫ dx the operator, it’s still uniquely defined.

    source