Was Jacobi the first to notice the ambiguity in the partial derivatives notation? And did anyone object to his fix?When did the abuse of notation $y=y(x)$ start?history of calculus of several variablesPrimes represented by two-variable quadratic polynomialsThe Riemann zeros and the heat equationDoes a proof of Selberg's 3.2 inequality exist?How come Cartan did not notice the close relationship between symmetric spaces and isoparametric hypersurfaces?When was the “arrow notation” for functions first introduced?History of $frac ddttan^-1(t)=frac 11+t^2$“Universal” differential identitiesHas incorrect notation ever led to a mistaken proof?

Was Jacobi the first to notice the ambiguity in the partial derivatives notation? And did anyone object to his fix?


When did the abuse of notation $y=y(x)$ start?history of calculus of several variablesPrimes represented by two-variable quadratic polynomialsThe Riemann zeros and the heat equationDoes a proof of Selberg's 3.2 inequality exist?How come Cartan did not notice the close relationship between symmetric spaces and isoparametric hypersurfaces?When was the “arrow notation” for functions first introduced?History of $frac ddttan^-1(t)=frac 11+t^2$“Universal” differential identitiesHas incorrect notation ever led to a mistaken proof?













19














$begingroup$


In his 1841 article De determinantibus, Jacobi remarked that the notation $fracpartial zpartial x$ for partial derivatives is ambiguous. He observed that when $z$ is a function of $x,y$ as well of say $x,u$, then the coefficient $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the linear expansion of $dz$ with respect to $dx,dy$, denotes something else than the partial derivative $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the expansion of $dz$ wrt $dx,du$.



As he himself writes:




In order for the partial differentials, of a function which depends on more than one variable, to be completely determined, it does not suffice to provide the function to be differentiated and the variable with respect to which to differentiate; one must moreover express which quantities remain constant during the differentiation.




A longer excerpt can be found here.



Probably many others have made the same observation since then. Vladimir Arnold for instance makes it in a footnote to his Classical Mechanics. But partial derivatives already existed for 100 years before De determinantibus. (With a slightly different notation that has the same problem.)



Q1: Was Jacobi the first mathematician to point out the ambiguity?



In the same article, Jacobi also proposed a fix for the problem: he suggested we write
$fracpartial z(x,y)partial x$ for the partial derivative when $y$ is held constant, and $fracpartial z(x,u)partial x$ when $u$ is held constant. This introduces a new problem, since it overloads the notation for function application $f(x,y)$, which already had an established and different meaning at that time.



Q2: Did no one object to the suggestion of Jacobi?



Finally, in many physics textbooks (thermodynamics in particular), the problem is fixed by writing
$
left(fracpartial zpartial xright)_y
$

for the derivative of $z$ wrt $x$ when $y$ is held constant.



Q3: Who proposed this fix and when?










share|cite|improve this question










$endgroup$










  • 8




    $begingroup$
    hsm.stackexchange.com seems to be a right forum for such type questions.
    $endgroup$
    – user64494
    Jul 17 at 10:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @user64494 hsm has not been able to get out of its beta status in 5 years. And several MO users that could answer the question are not active there.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 18 at 12:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There is the same ambiguity in the phrase "other things being equal". (Which other things?)
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Goodwillie
    Jul 20 at 20:37










  • $begingroup$
    Side note - there are actually two ways you can approach it - either be explicit about the variables keeping constant or be explicit about the variables you want to allow to vary. Each have their relative merits. Wrote a short piece on it here: academia.edu/39723296/…
    $endgroup$
    – johnnyb
    Jul 20 at 21:03











  • $begingroup$
    @johnnyb where could I ask a question or make a comment on your note?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 21 at 8:41















19














$begingroup$


In his 1841 article De determinantibus, Jacobi remarked that the notation $fracpartial zpartial x$ for partial derivatives is ambiguous. He observed that when $z$ is a function of $x,y$ as well of say $x,u$, then the coefficient $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the linear expansion of $dz$ with respect to $dx,dy$, denotes something else than the partial derivative $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the expansion of $dz$ wrt $dx,du$.



As he himself writes:




In order for the partial differentials, of a function which depends on more than one variable, to be completely determined, it does not suffice to provide the function to be differentiated and the variable with respect to which to differentiate; one must moreover express which quantities remain constant during the differentiation.




A longer excerpt can be found here.



Probably many others have made the same observation since then. Vladimir Arnold for instance makes it in a footnote to his Classical Mechanics. But partial derivatives already existed for 100 years before De determinantibus. (With a slightly different notation that has the same problem.)



Q1: Was Jacobi the first mathematician to point out the ambiguity?



In the same article, Jacobi also proposed a fix for the problem: he suggested we write
$fracpartial z(x,y)partial x$ for the partial derivative when $y$ is held constant, and $fracpartial z(x,u)partial x$ when $u$ is held constant. This introduces a new problem, since it overloads the notation for function application $f(x,y)$, which already had an established and different meaning at that time.



Q2: Did no one object to the suggestion of Jacobi?



Finally, in many physics textbooks (thermodynamics in particular), the problem is fixed by writing
$
left(fracpartial zpartial xright)_y
$

for the derivative of $z$ wrt $x$ when $y$ is held constant.



Q3: Who proposed this fix and when?










share|cite|improve this question










$endgroup$










  • 8




    $begingroup$
    hsm.stackexchange.com seems to be a right forum for such type questions.
    $endgroup$
    – user64494
    Jul 17 at 10:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @user64494 hsm has not been able to get out of its beta status in 5 years. And several MO users that could answer the question are not active there.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 18 at 12:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There is the same ambiguity in the phrase "other things being equal". (Which other things?)
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Goodwillie
    Jul 20 at 20:37










  • $begingroup$
    Side note - there are actually two ways you can approach it - either be explicit about the variables keeping constant or be explicit about the variables you want to allow to vary. Each have their relative merits. Wrote a short piece on it here: academia.edu/39723296/…
    $endgroup$
    – johnnyb
    Jul 20 at 21:03











  • $begingroup$
    @johnnyb where could I ask a question or make a comment on your note?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 21 at 8:41













19












19








19


4



$begingroup$


In his 1841 article De determinantibus, Jacobi remarked that the notation $fracpartial zpartial x$ for partial derivatives is ambiguous. He observed that when $z$ is a function of $x,y$ as well of say $x,u$, then the coefficient $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the linear expansion of $dz$ with respect to $dx,dy$, denotes something else than the partial derivative $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the expansion of $dz$ wrt $dx,du$.



As he himself writes:




In order for the partial differentials, of a function which depends on more than one variable, to be completely determined, it does not suffice to provide the function to be differentiated and the variable with respect to which to differentiate; one must moreover express which quantities remain constant during the differentiation.




A longer excerpt can be found here.



Probably many others have made the same observation since then. Vladimir Arnold for instance makes it in a footnote to his Classical Mechanics. But partial derivatives already existed for 100 years before De determinantibus. (With a slightly different notation that has the same problem.)



Q1: Was Jacobi the first mathematician to point out the ambiguity?



In the same article, Jacobi also proposed a fix for the problem: he suggested we write
$fracpartial z(x,y)partial x$ for the partial derivative when $y$ is held constant, and $fracpartial z(x,u)partial x$ when $u$ is held constant. This introduces a new problem, since it overloads the notation for function application $f(x,y)$, which already had an established and different meaning at that time.



Q2: Did no one object to the suggestion of Jacobi?



Finally, in many physics textbooks (thermodynamics in particular), the problem is fixed by writing
$
left(fracpartial zpartial xright)_y
$

for the derivative of $z$ wrt $x$ when $y$ is held constant.



Q3: Who proposed this fix and when?










share|cite|improve this question










$endgroup$




In his 1841 article De determinantibus, Jacobi remarked that the notation $fracpartial zpartial x$ for partial derivatives is ambiguous. He observed that when $z$ is a function of $x,y$ as well of say $x,u$, then the coefficient $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the linear expansion of $dz$ with respect to $dx,dy$, denotes something else than the partial derivative $fracpartial zpartial x$ appearing in the expansion of $dz$ wrt $dx,du$.



As he himself writes:




In order for the partial differentials, of a function which depends on more than one variable, to be completely determined, it does not suffice to provide the function to be differentiated and the variable with respect to which to differentiate; one must moreover express which quantities remain constant during the differentiation.




A longer excerpt can be found here.



Probably many others have made the same observation since then. Vladimir Arnold for instance makes it in a footnote to his Classical Mechanics. But partial derivatives already existed for 100 years before De determinantibus. (With a slightly different notation that has the same problem.)



Q1: Was Jacobi the first mathematician to point out the ambiguity?



In the same article, Jacobi also proposed a fix for the problem: he suggested we write
$fracpartial z(x,y)partial x$ for the partial derivative when $y$ is held constant, and $fracpartial z(x,u)partial x$ when $u$ is held constant. This introduces a new problem, since it overloads the notation for function application $f(x,y)$, which already had an established and different meaning at that time.



Q2: Did no one object to the suggestion of Jacobi?



Finally, in many physics textbooks (thermodynamics in particular), the problem is fixed by writing
$
left(fracpartial zpartial xright)_y
$

for the derivative of $z$ wrt $x$ when $y$ is held constant.



Q3: Who proposed this fix and when?







ho.history-overview notation differential-calculus






share|cite|improve this question














share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Jul 17 at 10:13









Michael BächtoldMichael Bächtold

3,54229 silver badges43 bronze badges




3,54229 silver badges43 bronze badges










  • 8




    $begingroup$
    hsm.stackexchange.com seems to be a right forum for such type questions.
    $endgroup$
    – user64494
    Jul 17 at 10:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @user64494 hsm has not been able to get out of its beta status in 5 years. And several MO users that could answer the question are not active there.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 18 at 12:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There is the same ambiguity in the phrase "other things being equal". (Which other things?)
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Goodwillie
    Jul 20 at 20:37










  • $begingroup$
    Side note - there are actually two ways you can approach it - either be explicit about the variables keeping constant or be explicit about the variables you want to allow to vary. Each have their relative merits. Wrote a short piece on it here: academia.edu/39723296/…
    $endgroup$
    – johnnyb
    Jul 20 at 21:03











  • $begingroup$
    @johnnyb where could I ask a question or make a comment on your note?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 21 at 8:41












  • 8




    $begingroup$
    hsm.stackexchange.com seems to be a right forum for such type questions.
    $endgroup$
    – user64494
    Jul 17 at 10:22






  • 3




    $begingroup$
    @user64494 hsm has not been able to get out of its beta status in 5 years. And several MO users that could answer the question are not active there.
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 18 at 12:10






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    There is the same ambiguity in the phrase "other things being equal". (Which other things?)
    $endgroup$
    – Tom Goodwillie
    Jul 20 at 20:37










  • $begingroup$
    Side note - there are actually two ways you can approach it - either be explicit about the variables keeping constant or be explicit about the variables you want to allow to vary. Each have their relative merits. Wrote a short piece on it here: academia.edu/39723296/…
    $endgroup$
    – johnnyb
    Jul 20 at 21:03











  • $begingroup$
    @johnnyb where could I ask a question or make a comment on your note?
    $endgroup$
    – Michael Bächtold
    Jul 21 at 8:41







8




8




$begingroup$
hsm.stackexchange.com seems to be a right forum for such type questions.
$endgroup$
– user64494
Jul 17 at 10:22




$begingroup$
hsm.stackexchange.com seems to be a right forum for such type questions.
$endgroup$
– user64494
Jul 17 at 10:22




3




3




$begingroup$
@user64494 hsm has not been able to get out of its beta status in 5 years. And several MO users that could answer the question are not active there.
$endgroup$
– Michael Bächtold
Jul 18 at 12:10




$begingroup$
@user64494 hsm has not been able to get out of its beta status in 5 years. And several MO users that could answer the question are not active there.
$endgroup$
– Michael Bächtold
Jul 18 at 12:10




1




1




$begingroup$
There is the same ambiguity in the phrase "other things being equal". (Which other things?)
$endgroup$
– Tom Goodwillie
Jul 20 at 20:37




$begingroup$
There is the same ambiguity in the phrase "other things being equal". (Which other things?)
$endgroup$
– Tom Goodwillie
Jul 20 at 20:37












$begingroup$
Side note - there are actually two ways you can approach it - either be explicit about the variables keeping constant or be explicit about the variables you want to allow to vary. Each have their relative merits. Wrote a short piece on it here: academia.edu/39723296/…
$endgroup$
– johnnyb
Jul 20 at 21:03





$begingroup$
Side note - there are actually two ways you can approach it - either be explicit about the variables keeping constant or be explicit about the variables you want to allow to vary. Each have their relative merits. Wrote a short piece on it here: academia.edu/39723296/…
$endgroup$
– johnnyb
Jul 20 at 21:03













$begingroup$
@johnnyb where could I ask a question or make a comment on your note?
$endgroup$
– Michael Bächtold
Jul 21 at 8:41




$begingroup$
@johnnyb where could I ask a question or make a comment on your note?
$endgroup$
– Michael Bächtold
Jul 21 at 8:41










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















28
















$begingroup$

An extensive review of the history is given by Florian Cajori, The History of Notations of the Calculus.



Q1: Yes, it does appear that Jacobi was the first to explicitly state this ambiguity.



Q2: The German mathematician Paul Stäckel objected to the suggestion of Jacobi: "This notation is ambiguous too, for the symbol is used in two different meanings, in as much as $f(x, y)$ is another function of $x$ and $y$ than is $f(x, u)$ of $x$ and $u$."



Q3: The Irish engineer John Perry advocated the notation $left(fracdzdxright)_y$. I reproduce Perry's 1902 Letter to Nature, where he says he learned this notation at school.








share|cite|improve this answer












$endgroup$
















    Your Answer








    StackExchange.ready(function()
    var channelOptions =
    tags: "".split(" "),
    id: "504"
    ;
    initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

    StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
    // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
    if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
    StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
    createEditor();
    );

    else
    createEditor();

    );

    function createEditor()
    StackExchange.prepareEditor(
    heartbeatType: 'answer',
    autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
    convertImagesToLinks: true,
    noModals: true,
    showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
    reputationToPostImages: 10,
    bindNavPrevention: true,
    postfix: "",
    imageUploader:
    brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
    contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/"u003ecc by-sa 4.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
    allowUrls: true
    ,
    noCode: true, onDemand: true,
    discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
    ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
    );



    );














    draft saved

    draft discarded
















    StackExchange.ready(
    function ()
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336309%2fwas-jacobi-the-first-to-notice-the-ambiguity-in-the-partial-derivatives-notation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown


























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    28
















    $begingroup$

    An extensive review of the history is given by Florian Cajori, The History of Notations of the Calculus.



    Q1: Yes, it does appear that Jacobi was the first to explicitly state this ambiguity.



    Q2: The German mathematician Paul Stäckel objected to the suggestion of Jacobi: "This notation is ambiguous too, for the symbol is used in two different meanings, in as much as $f(x, y)$ is another function of $x$ and $y$ than is $f(x, u)$ of $x$ and $u$."



    Q3: The Irish engineer John Perry advocated the notation $left(fracdzdxright)_y$. I reproduce Perry's 1902 Letter to Nature, where he says he learned this notation at school.








    share|cite|improve this answer












    $endgroup$



















      28
















      $begingroup$

      An extensive review of the history is given by Florian Cajori, The History of Notations of the Calculus.



      Q1: Yes, it does appear that Jacobi was the first to explicitly state this ambiguity.



      Q2: The German mathematician Paul Stäckel objected to the suggestion of Jacobi: "This notation is ambiguous too, for the symbol is used in two different meanings, in as much as $f(x, y)$ is another function of $x$ and $y$ than is $f(x, u)$ of $x$ and $u$."



      Q3: The Irish engineer John Perry advocated the notation $left(fracdzdxright)_y$. I reproduce Perry's 1902 Letter to Nature, where he says he learned this notation at school.








      share|cite|improve this answer












      $endgroup$

















        28














        28










        28







        $begingroup$

        An extensive review of the history is given by Florian Cajori, The History of Notations of the Calculus.



        Q1: Yes, it does appear that Jacobi was the first to explicitly state this ambiguity.



        Q2: The German mathematician Paul Stäckel objected to the suggestion of Jacobi: "This notation is ambiguous too, for the symbol is used in two different meanings, in as much as $f(x, y)$ is another function of $x$ and $y$ than is $f(x, u)$ of $x$ and $u$."



        Q3: The Irish engineer John Perry advocated the notation $left(fracdzdxright)_y$. I reproduce Perry's 1902 Letter to Nature, where he says he learned this notation at school.








        share|cite|improve this answer












        $endgroup$



        An extensive review of the history is given by Florian Cajori, The History of Notations of the Calculus.



        Q1: Yes, it does appear that Jacobi was the first to explicitly state this ambiguity.



        Q2: The German mathematician Paul Stäckel objected to the suggestion of Jacobi: "This notation is ambiguous too, for the symbol is used in two different meanings, in as much as $f(x, y)$ is another function of $x$ and $y$ than is $f(x, u)$ of $x$ and $u$."



        Q3: The Irish engineer John Perry advocated the notation $left(fracdzdxright)_y$. I reproduce Perry's 1902 Letter to Nature, where he says he learned this notation at school.









        share|cite|improve this answer















        share|cite|improve this answer




        share|cite|improve this answer








        edited Jul 17 at 11:15

























        answered Jul 17 at 10:34









        Carlo BeenakkerCarlo Beenakker

        90.9k9 gold badges224 silver badges335 bronze badges




        90.9k9 gold badges224 silver badges335 bronze badges































            draft saved

            draft discarded















































            Thanks for contributing an answer to MathOverflow!


            • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

            But avoid


            • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

            • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

            Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function ()
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathoverflow.net%2fquestions%2f336309%2fwas-jacobi-the-first-to-notice-the-ambiguity-in-the-partial-derivatives-notation%23new-answer', 'question_page');

            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown





















































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown

































            Required, but never shown














            Required, but never shown












            Required, but never shown







            Required, but never shown









            Popular posts from this blog

            Tamil (spriik) Luke uk diar | Nawigatjuun

            Align equal signs while including text over equalitiesAMS align: left aligned text/math plus multicolumn alignmentMultiple alignmentsAligning equations in multiple placesNumbering and aligning an equation with multiple columnsHow to align one equation with another multline equationUsing \ in environments inside the begintabularxNumber equations and preserving alignment of equal signsHow can I align equations to the left and to the right?Double equation alignment problem within align enviromentAligned within align: Why are they right-aligned?

            Training a classifier when some of the features are unknownWhy does Gradient Boosting regression predict negative values when there are no negative y-values in my training set?How to improve an existing (trained) classifier?What is effect when I set up some self defined predisctor variables?Why Matlab neural network classification returns decimal values on prediction dataset?Fitting and transforming text data in training, testing, and validation setsHow to quantify the performance of the classifier (multi-class SVM) using the test data?How do I control for some patients providing multiple samples in my training data?Training and Test setTraining a convolutional neural network for image denoising in MatlabShouldn't an autoencoder with #(neurons in hidden layer) = #(neurons in input layer) be “perfect”?