DOCSLIB.ORG

The Teaching of Elementary Calculus Using the Nonstandard Analysis Approach Author(S): Kathleen Sullivan Source: the American Mathematical Monthly, Vol

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
The Teaching of Elementary Calculus Using the Nonstandard Analysis Approach Author(S): Kathleen Sullivan Source: the American Mathematical Monthly, Vol The Teaching of Elementary Calculus Using the Nonstandard Analysis Approach Author(s): Kathleen Sullivan Source: The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 83, No. 5 (May, 1976), pp. 370-375 Published by: Mathematical Association of America Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2318657 . Accessed: 10/03/2014 11:41 Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at . http://www.jstor.org/page/info/about/policies/terms.jsp . JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected]. Mathematical Association of America is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Mathematical Monthly. http://www.jstor.org This content downloaded from 132.70.4.118 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:41:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION EDITED BY PAUL T. MIELKE AND SHIRLEY HILL Materialfor this Department should be sentto Paul T. Mielke,Department of Mathematics, Wabash College, Crawfordsville,IN 47933, or to ShirleyHill, Departmentof Mathematics,University of Missouri,Kansas City,MO 64110. PEAKS, RIDGE, PASSES, VALLEY AND PITS A Slide Study of f(x,y)=Ax2+By2 CLIFF LONG The adventof computer graphics is makingit possible to payheed to thesuggestion, "a pictureis wortha thousandwords." As studentsand teachers of mathematics we shouldbecome more aware of thevariational approach to certainmathematical concepts, and considerpresenting these concepts througha sequenceof computergenerated pictures. To illustratethis notion, consider the following. In thestudy of functionsof twovariables it is usuallyemphasized that a regularnon-planar point on a smoothsurface can be classifiedas one of threedistinct types: elliptic, parabolic, hyperbolic [1]. These maybe illustratedusing the functions f(x,y) = Ax2+ By2 withthe origin being: (a) ellipticif A *B > 0; (b) parabolicif A *B = 0, A,#B (planarif A = B = 0); (c) hyperbolicif A *B < 0. The slidesreproduced here (see page371) were made at BowlingGreen State University from the screenof an Owens-Illinoisplasma panel which is an outputdevice for a Data GeneralNova 800 mini-computer.Many slide sets and supereight movies have been produced by college mathematics teachersunder an NSF grantfor "Computer Graphics for Learning Mathematics." The institutewas heldat CarletonCollege in Northfield, Minnesota, 55057, during the summers of 1973 and 1974. It was underthe direction of Dr. RogerB. Kirchner,who, with no small amount of personal effort, has made theseslides and moviesavailable at minimumreproduction cost. It mustof course be keptin mindthat while one goodpicture may be wortha thousandwords, a thousandpoorly chosen ones maybe worthless. Reference 1. D. Hilbert and S. Cohn-Vossen, Geometryand the Imagination,Chelsea, New York, 1952. DEPARTMENT OF MATHEMATICS, BOWLING GREEN STATE UNIVERSITY, BOWLING GREEN, OH 43403. THE TEACHING OF ELEMENTARY CALCULUS USING THE NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS APPROACH KATHLEEN SULLIVAN In the 1960'sa mathematicallogician, Abraham Robinson, found a wayto makerigorous the intuitivelyattractive infinitesimal calculus of Newton and Leibniz, beginning a branch of mathematics callednonstandard analysis. When elementary calculus is developedfrom this nonstandard approach, thedefinitions of thebasic concepts become simpler and thearguments more intuitive (see Robinson [21or Keisler[1]). For example,the definition of the continuity of a functionf at a pointc is simply thatx infinitelyclose to c impliesthat f(x) is infinitelyclose to f(c). 370 This content downloaded from 132.70.4.118 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:41:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION 371 PWA PmPEWot 6y ZI -. y Z1 4 Z.i a z.i.v I z ixa-v 2.14.45 2144.6 v~~~~~~~ vS ,lv .-v -v I z-xea 2aa a-lt,v a a-12,t a a.lZ.y a a I Z.-1.y.1V2 I .-.S2.IV2 iI a 1 Z._,Z-. IZ -.aV I I Z.tM2.lVe I Z,#X2+1v2 I Z. 44.15 z..sa.as Z.6x415 It wouldseem that there ought to be considerablepedagogical payoff from this greater simplicity andcloseness to intuition.However, anyone considering using this approach will have questions that needto be answered.Will the students "buy" the idea ofinfinitely small? Will the instructor need to havea backgroundin nonstandardanalysis? Will the students acquire the basic calculus skills? Will theyreally understand the fundamental concepts any differently? How difficultwill it be forthem to makethe transition into standard analysis courses if they want to studymore mathematics? Is the nonstandardapproach only suitable for gifted mathematics students? In orderto get answersto some of thesequestions, an experimentwas carriedout, using an This content downloaded from 132.70.4.118 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:41:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 372 KATHLEEN SULLIVAN [May institutionalcyclic design (see Sullivan[3]). Fiveinstructors who were teaching a traditionalcalculus coursein schoolslocated in theChicago-Milwaukee area duringthe 1972-73 school year volunteered to use the nonstandardapproach during the 1973-74school year. The textused was H. Jerome Keisler'sElementary Calculus: An ApproachUsing Infinitesimals, published by Prindle,Weber & Schmidt,which is thefirst text book to adaptthe ideas of Robinson to a firstyear calculus course. It seemedimportant that the same teachers be involvedeach year,teaching basically the same student population.Otherwise, differences inattitude and performance might well be writtenoff to differences ininstructors orin studentpopulations. Only instructors who had taught calculus several times before wereasked to participate in the study so thatthey would be ina goodposition to makecomparisons. Fourof the five schools participating were small private colleges. The fifth was a publichigh school withover 2000 students in Glendale,an uppermiddle-class suburb of Milwaukee.At SaintXavier College,the control and experimental classes consisted of students planning to majorin mathematics; at Lake ForestCollege, of studentsin an honorsprogram; at NicoletHigh School, of a groupof acceleratedmathematics students in an advancedplacement class. Barat Collegeoffers only one calculuscourse, and thesame is trueof MountMary College. The assumptionthat the two groups would be comparablein abilitywas supportedby a checkof theSAT mathematicsability scores which were available, i.e., scoresfor 58 outof the 68 studentsin thecontrol group and for55 out of the68 studentsin theexperimental group. The distributionof scoresis shownin thetable below. TABLE 1: SAT Math AbilityScores Control Group ExperimentalGroup 700 + 13 13 600-699 29 29 500-599 14 11 400-499 2 2 The meanschosen to collectdata werethe following:a calculustest given to bothgroups of students;interviews with the instructorswho taughtthe controland experimentalclasses; and a questionnairefilled out by all thosewho had used Keisler'sbook withinthe past five years. The calculustest was a fifty-minuteexam which the instructors did notsee untilafter it had been givento bothgroups. The purposewas to explorewhether or notthere did seemto be differencesin performancebetween the two groups. The questionstested the ability of the students to definebasic concepts,compute limits, produce proofs, and applybasic concepts. The singlequestion which brought out the greatestdifferences between the two groupswas question3: Definef(x) by the rule f(x)=x2 forx 2, f(x)=0 forx=2. Prove,using the definition oflimit, that limx b2f(x) = 4. The responsesof thestudents are summarizedin Table 2. The factthat there were a greaternumber of students in theexperimental group willing to tryto solvethe problem was part of a pattern.Table 3 showsthe numbers in the two groups who attempted an answerto thecorresponding test questions. Therewas also a notabledifference between the two groups in the way in which they responded to question6, whichcalled for an explanationas to whya certainintegral represented the volume of a givensolid. In the controlgroup there were just 9 studentswho spoke of the integralas a sum, comparedwith 16 in the experimental group. And of these students, only 3 inthe first group, but 10 in thenonstandard group, saw it as a sumof smallvolumes rather than a sumof smallareas. This content downloaded from 132.70.4.118 on Mon, 10 Mar 2014 11:41:19 AM All use subject to JSTOR Terms and Conditions 1976] MATHEMATICAL EDUCATION 373 TABLE 2: StudentResponses to Question 3 Control Group ExperimentalGroup (68 students) (68 students) Did not attempt 22 4 Standard arguments satisfactoryproof 2 correctstatements falling short of proof (e.g., one is only concerned with x X 2) 15 14 incorrectarguments 29 23 Nonstandardarguments satisfactoryproof 25 incorrectarguments 2 TABLE 3: Number of StudentsAttempting a Solution Control Group ExperimentalGroup (68 students) (68 students) Definingbasic concepts 48 52 Computinglimits 49 68 Producingproofs 18 45 Applyingbasic concepts 60 60 One ofthe instructors mentioned during an interviewthat formerly his students had found the use ofthe symbol dx in theintegral very mysterious, but that the students in theexperimental class had seemedcompletely satisfied. This observation was supportedby the answers to question6. The first year,only 2 studentscommented on thesignificance of dx.The secondyear, 16 studentsbrought
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nonstandard Methods in Analysis an Elementary Approach to Stochastic Differential Equations
    Nonstandard Methods in Analysis An elementary approach to Stochastic Differential Equations Vieri Benci Dipartimento di Matematica Applicata June 2008 Vieri Benci (DMA-Pisa) Nonstandard Methods 03/06 1 / 42 In most applications of NSA to analysis, only elementary tools and techniques of nonstandard calculus seems to be necessary. The advantages of a theory which includes infinitasimals rely more on the possibility of making new models rather than in the dimostration techniques. These two points will be illustrated using a-theory in the study of Brownian motion. The aim of this talk is to make two points relative to NSA: Vieri Benci (DMA-Pisa) Nonstandard Methods 03/06 2 / 42 The advantages of a theory which includes infinitasimals rely more on the possibility of making new models rather than in the dimostration techniques. These two points will be illustrated using a-theory in the study of Brownian motion. The aim of this talk is to make two points relative to NSA: In most applications of NSA to analysis, only elementary tools and techniques of nonstandard calculus seems to be necessary. Vieri Benci (DMA-Pisa) Nonstandard Methods 03/06 2 / 42 These two points will be illustrated using a-theory in the study of Brownian motion. The aim of this talk is to make two points relative to NSA: In most applications of NSA to analysis, only elementary tools and techniques of nonstandard calculus seems to be necessary. The advantages of a theory which includes infinitasimals rely more on the possibility of making new models rather than in the dimostration techniques. Vieri Benci (DMA-Pisa) Nonstandard Methods 03/06 2 / 42 The aim of this talk is to make two points relative to NSA: In most applications of NSA to analysis, only elementary tools and techniques of nonstandard calculus seems to be necessary.
    [Show full text]
  • An Introduction to Nonstandard Analysis 11
    AN INTRODUCTION TO NONSTANDARD ANALYSIS ISAAC DAVIS Abstract. In this paper we give an introduction to nonstandard analysis, starting with an ultrapower construction of the hyperreals. We then demon- strate how theorems in standard analysis \transfer over" to nonstandard anal- ysis, and how theorems in standard analysis can be proven using theorems in nonstandard analysis. 1. Introduction For many centuries, early mathematicians and physicists would solve problems by considering infinitesimally small pieces of a shape, or movement along a path by an infinitesimal amount. Archimedes derived the formula for the area of a circle by thinking of a circle as a polygon with infinitely many infinitesimal sides [1]. In particular, the construction of calculus was first motivated by this intuitive notion of infinitesimal change. G.W. Leibniz's derivation of calculus made extensive use of “infinitesimal” numbers, which were both nonzero but small enough to add to any real number without changing it noticeably. Although intuitively clear, infinitesi- mals were ultimately rejected as mathematically unsound, and were replaced with the common -δ method of computing limits and derivatives. However, in 1960 Abraham Robinson developed nonstandard analysis, in which the reals are rigor- ously extended to include infinitesimal numbers and infinite numbers; this new extended field is called the field of hyperreal numbers. The goal was to create a system of analysis that was more intuitively appealing than standard analysis but without losing any of the rigor of standard analysis. In this paper, we will explore the construction and various uses of nonstandard analysis. In section 2 we will introduce the notion of an ultrafilter, which will allow us to do a typical ultrapower construction of the hyperreal numbers.
    [Show full text]
  • Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics
    Found Sci DOI 10.1007/s10699-012-9316-5 Tools, Objects, and Chimeras: Connes on the Role of Hyperreals in Mathematics Vladimir Kanovei · Mikhail G. Katz · Thomas Mormann © Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2012 Abstract We examine some of Connes’ criticisms of Robinson’s infinitesimals starting in 1995. Connes sought to exploit the Solovay model S as ammunition against non-standard analysis, but the model tends to boomerang, undercutting Connes’ own earlier work in func- tional analysis. Connes described the hyperreals as both a “virtual theory” and a “chimera”, yet acknowledged that his argument relies on the transfer principle. We analyze Connes’ “dart-throwing” thought experiment, but reach an opposite conclusion. In S, all definable sets of reals are Lebesgue measurable, suggesting that Connes views a theory as being “vir- tual” if it is not definable in a suitable model of ZFC. If so, Connes’ claim that a theory of the hyperreals is “virtual” is refuted by the existence of a definable model of the hyperreal field due to Kanovei and Shelah. Free ultrafilters aren’t definable, yet Connes exploited such ultrafilters both in his own earlier work on the classification of factors in the 1970s and 80s, and in Noncommutative Geometry, raising the question whether the latter may not be vulnera- ble to Connes’ criticism of virtuality. We analyze the philosophical underpinnings of Connes’ argument based on Gödel’s incompleteness theorem, and detect an apparent circularity in Connes’ logic. We document the reliance on non-constructive foundational material, and specifically on the Dixmier trace − (featured on the front cover of Connes’ magnum opus) V.
    [Show full text]
  • Calculus/Print Version
    Calculus/Print version Wikibooks.org March 24, 2011. Contents 1 TABLEOF CONTENTS 1 1.1 PRECALCULUS1 ....................................... 1 1.2 LIMITS2 ........................................... 2 1.3 DIFFERENTIATION3 .................................... 3 1.4 INTEGRATION4 ....................................... 4 1.5 PARAMETRICAND POLAR EQUATIONS5 ......................... 8 1.6 SEQUENCES AND SERIES6 ................................. 9 1.7 MULTIVARIABLE AND DIFFERENTIAL CALCULUS7 ................... 10 1.8 EXTENSIONS8 ........................................ 11 1.9 APPENDIX .......................................... 11 1.10 EXERCISE SOLUTIONS ................................... 11 1.11 REFERENCES9 ........................................ 11 1.12 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS AND FURTHER READING10 ................... 12 2 INTRODUCTION 13 2.1 WHAT IS CALCULUS?.................................... 13 2.2 WHY LEARN CALCULUS?.................................. 14 2.3 WHAT IS INVOLVED IN LEARNING CALCULUS? ..................... 14 2.4 WHAT YOU SHOULD KNOW BEFORE USING THIS TEXT . 14 2.5 SCOPE ............................................ 15 3 PRECALCULUS 17 4 ALGEBRA 19 4.1 RULES OF ARITHMETIC AND ALGEBRA .......................... 19 4.2 INTERVAL NOTATION .................................... 20 4.3 EXPONENTS AND RADICALS ................................ 21 4.4 FACTORING AND ROOTS .................................. 22 4.5 SIMPLIFYING RATIONAL EXPRESSIONS .......................... 23 4.6 FORMULAS OF MULTIPLICATION OF POLYNOMIALS . 23 1 Chapter 1 on page
    [Show full text]
  • Calculus for a New Century: a Pump, Not a Filter
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 300 252 SE 050 088 AUTHOR Steen, Lynn Arthur, Ed. TITLE Calculus for a New Century: A Pump, Not a Filter. Papers Presented at a Colloquium _(Washington, D.C., October 28-29, 1987). MAA Notes Number 8. INSTITUTION Mathematical Association of America, Washington, D.C. REPORT NO ISBN-0-88385-058-3 PUB DATE 88 NOTE 267p. AVAILABLE FROMMathematical Association of America, 1529 18th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20007 ($12.50). PUB TYPE Viewpoints (120) -- Collected Works - Conference Proceedings (021) EDRS PRICE MF01 Plus Postage. PC Not Available from EDRS. DESCRIPTORS *Calculus; Change Strategies; College Curriculum; *College Mathematics; Curriculum Development; *Educational Change; Educational Trends; Higher Education; Mathematics Curriculum; *Mathematics Instruction; Mathematics Tests ABSTRACT This document, intended as a resource for calculus reform, contains 75 separate contributions, comprising a very diverse set of opinions about the shap, of calculus for a new century. The authors agree on the forces that are reshapinc calculus, but disagree on how to respond to these forces. They agree that the current course is not satisfactory, yet disagree about new content emphases. They agree that the neglect of teaching must be repaired, but do not agree on the most promising avenues for improvement. The document contains: (1) a record of presentations prepared fcr a colloquium; (2) a collage of reactions to the colloquium by a variety of individuals representing diverse calculus constituencies; (3) summaries of 16 discussion groups that elaborate on particular themes of importance to reform efforts; (4) a series of background papers providing context for the calculus colloquium; (5) a selection of final examinations from Calculus I, II, and III from universities, colleges, and two-year colleges around the country; (6) a collection of reprints of documents related to calculus; and (7) a list of colloquium participants.
    [Show full text]
  • Zeno's Paradoxes
    http://www.iep.utm.edu/zeno-par/ Go DEC JUN JUL ⍰ ❎ 297 captures 10 f 11 Jun 2010 - 10 Jun 2020 2019 2020 2021 ▾ About this capture Zeno’s Paradoxes In the fifth century B.C.E., Zeno of Elea offered arguments that led to conclusions contradicting what we all know from our physical experience—that runners run, that arrows fly, and that there are many different things in the world. The arguments were paradoxes for the ancient Greek philosophers. Because many of the arguments turn crucially on the notion that space and time are infinitely divisible, Zeno was the first person to show that the concept of infinity is problematical. In the Achilles Paradox, Achilles races to catch a slower runner—for example, a tortoise that is crawling in a line away from him. The tortoise has a head start, so if Achilles hopes to overtake it, he must run at least as far as the place where the tortoise presently is, but by the time he arrives there, it will have crawled to a new place, so then Achilles must run at least to this new place, but the tortoise meanwhile will have crawled on, and so forth. Achilles will never catch the tortoise, says Zeno. Therefore, good reasoning shows that fast runners never can catch slow ones. So much the worse for the claim that any kind of motion really occurs, Zeno says in defense of his mentor Parmenides who had argued that motion is an illusion. Although practically no scholars today would agree with Zeno’s conclusion, we cannot escape the paradox by jumping up from our seat and chasing down a tortoise, nor by saying Zeno should have constructed a new argument in which Achilles takes better aim and runs to some other target place ahead of where the tortoise is.
    [Show full text]
  • BEYOND CALCULUS Math21a, O
    5/7/2004 CALCULUS BEYOND CALCULUS Math21a, O. Knill DISCRETE SPACE CALCULUS. Many ideas in calculus make sense in a discrete setup, where space is a graph, curves are curves in the graph and surfaces are collections of "plaquettes", polygons formed by edges of the graph. One can look at functions on this graph. Scalar functions are functions defined on the vertices of the INTRODUCTION. Topics beyond multi-variable calculus are usually labeled with special names like "linear graphs. Vector fields are functions defined on the edges, other vector fields are defined as functions defined on algebra", "ordinary differential equations", "numerical analysis", "partial differential equations", "functional plaquettes. The gradient is a function defined on an edge as the difference between the values of f at the end analysis" or "complex analysis". Where one would draw the line between calculus and non-calculus topics is points. not clear but if calculus is about learning the basics of limits, differentiation, integration and summation, then Consider a network modeled by a planar graph which forms triangles. A scalar function assigns a value f multi-variable calculus is the "black belt" of calculus. Are there other ways to play this sport? n to each node n. An area function assigns values fT to each triangle T . A vector field assign values Fnm to each edge connecting node n with node m. The gradient of a scalar function is the vector field Fnm = fn fm. HOW WOULD ALIENS COMPUTE? On an other planet, calculus might be taught in a completely different − The curl of a vector field F is attaches to each triangle (k; m; n) the value curl(F )kmn = Fkm + Fmn + Fnk.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices Managing Editor
    Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices Managing Editor: M. HAZEWINKEL Centre for Mathematics and Computer Science, Amsterdam, The Netherlands Volume 525 Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices Edited by S.S. Kutateladze Sobolev Institute of Mathematics. Siberian Division of the Russian Academy of Sciences. Novosibirsk. Russia SPRINGER-SCIENCE+BUSINESS MEDIA, B. V. A C.LP. Catalogue record for this book is available from the Library of Congress. ISBN 978-94-010-5863-6 ISBN 978-94-011-4305-9 (eBook) DOI 10.1007/978-94-011-4305-9 This is an updated translation of the original Russian work. Nonstandard Analysis and Vector Lattices, A.E. Gutman, \'E.Yu. Emelyanov, A.G. Kusraev and S.S. Kutateladze. Novosibirsk, Sobolev Institute Press, 1999. The book was typeset using AMS-TeX. Printed an acid-free paper AII Rights Reserved ©2000 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht Originally published by Kluwer Academic Publishers in 2000 No part of the material protected by this copyright notice may be reproduced or utilized in any form or by any means, electronic or mechanical, including photocopying, recording or by any information storage and retrieval system, without written permission from the copyright owner. Contents Foreword ix Chapter 1. Nonstandard Methods and Kantorovich Spaces (A. G. Kusraev and S. S. Kutateladze) 1 § 1.l. Zermelo-Fraenkel Set·Theory 5 § l.2. Boolean Valued Set Theory 7 § l.3. Internal and External Set Theories 12 § 1.4. Relative Internal Set Theory 18 § l.5. Kantorovich Spaces 23 § l.6. Reals Inside Boolean Valued Models 26 § l.7. Functional Calculus in Kantorovich Spaces 30 § l.8.
    [Show full text]
  • Infinitesimal Methods in Mathematical Economics
    Infinitesimal Methods in Mathematical Economics Robert M. Anderson1 Department of Economics and Department of Mathematics University of California at Berkeley Berkeley, CA 94720, U.S.A. and Department of Economics Johns Hopkins University Baltimore, MD 21218, U.S.A. January 20, 2008 1The author is grateful to Marc Bettz¨uge, Don Brown, Hung- Wen Chang, G´erard Debreu, Eddie Dekel-Tabak, Greg Engl, Dmitri Ivanov, Jerry Keisler, Peter Loeb, Paul MacMillan, Mike Magill, Andreu Mas-Colell, Max Stinchcombe, Cathy Wein- berger and Bill Zame for their helpful comments. Financial sup- port from Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft, Gottfried-Wilhelm- Leibniz-F¨orderpreis is gratefully acknowledged. Contents 0Preface v 1 Nonstandard Analysis Lite 1 1.1 When is Nonstandard Analysis Useful? . 1 1.1.1 Large Economies . 2 1.1.2 Continuum of Random Variables . 4 1.1.3 Searching For Elementary Proofs . 4 1.2IdealElements................. 5 1.3Ultraproducts.................. 6 1.4InternalandExternalSets........... 9 1.5NotationalConventions............. 11 1.6StandardModels................ 12 1.7 Superstructure Embeddings . 14 1.8AFormalLanguage............... 16 1.9TransferPrinciple................ 16 1.10Saturation.................... 18 1.11InternalDefinitionPrinciple.......... 19 1.12 Nonstandard Extensions, or Enough Already with the Ultraproducts . 20 1.13HyperfiniteSets................. 21 1.14 Nonstandard Theorems Have Standard Proofs 22 2 Nonstandard Analysis Regular 23 2.1 Warning: Do Not Read this Chapter . 23 i ii CONTENTS 2.2AFormalLanguage............... 23 2.3 Extensions of L ................. 25 2.4 Assigning Truth Value to Formulas . 28 2.5 Interpreting Formulas in Superstructure Em- beddings..................... 32 2.6TransferPrinciple................ 33 2.7InternalDefinitionPrinciple.......... 34 2.8NonstandardExtensions............ 35 2.9TheExternalLanguage............. 36 2.10TheConservationPrinciple.......... 37 3RealAnalysis 39 3.1Monads..................... 39 3.2OpenandClosedSets............. 44 3.3Compactness.................
    [Show full text]
  • Arxiv:1809.06430V1 [Math.AP] 17 Sep 2018 with Prescribed Initial Condition
    Nonstandard existence proofs for reaction diffusion equations Connor Olson, Marshall Mueller, and Sigurd B. Angenent Abstract. We give an existence proof for distribution solutions to a scalar reaction diffusion equation, with the aim of illustrating both the differences and the common ingredients of the nonstandard and standard approaches. In particular, our proof shows how the operation of taking the standard part of a nonstandard real number can replace several different compactness the- orems, such as Ascoli's theorem and the Banach{Alaoglu theorem on weak∗- compactness of the unit ball in the dual of a Banach space. Contents 1. Introduction1 2. Distribution solutions4 3. The Cauchy problem for the heat equation6 4. The Cauchy problem for a Reaction Diffusion Equation 11 References 16 1. Introduction 1.1. Reaction diffusion equations. We consider the Cauchy problem for scalar reaction diffusion equations of the form @u @2u (1a) = D + f(u(x; t)); x 2 ; t ≥ 0 @t @x2 R arXiv:1809.06430v1 [math.AP] 17 Sep 2018 with prescribed initial condition (1b) u(x; 0) = u0(x): In the setting of reaction diffusion equations the function u(x; t) represents the density at location x 2 R and time t ≥ 0 of some substance which diffuses, and simultaneously grows or decays due to chemical reaction, biological mutation, or some other process. The term D@2u=@x2 in the PDE (1a) accounts for the change in u due to diffusion, while the nonlinear term f(u) accounts for the reaction rates. The prototypical example of such a reaction diffusion equation is the Fisher/KPP equation (see [9], [2]) in which the reaction term is given by f(u) = u − u2.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Analysis
    Nonstandard Analysis Armin Straub Technische Universität Darmstadt Dec 10, 2007 Contents 1 Introduction........................ ............ 2 1.1 Approaches to Getting Infinitesimals . 2 1.2 The Use of Infinitesimals . ... 5 2 Diving In....................... ............... 6 2.1 Limits and Ultrafilters ........................ .... 6 2.2 A First Nonstandard Peak . ...... 9 2.3 An Axiomatic Approach . ..... 11 2.4 Basic Usage . ............. 12 2.5 The Source of Nonstandard Strength . 16 2.6 Stronger Nonstandard Models . .. 17 2.7 Studying Z in its Own Right . .. 19 3 Conclusions....................... ............ 20 References....................... ............... 21 Abstract These notes complement a seminar talk I gave as a student at TU Darm- stadt as part of the StuVo (Studentische Vortragsreihe), Dec 10, 2007. While this text is meant to be informal in nature, any corrections as well as suggestions are very welcome. We discuss some ways to add infinitesimals to our usual numbers, get acquainted with ultrafilters and how they can be used to construct nonstandard extensions, and then provide an axiomatic framework for nonstandard analysis. As basic working examples we present nonstan- dard characterizations of continuity and uniform continuity. We close with a short external look at the nonstandard integers and point out connections withp-adic integers. 1 2 Nonstandard Analysis 1 Introduction 1.1 Approaches to Getting Infinitesimals One aspect of nonstandard analysis is that it introduces a new kind of numbers, namely infinitely large numbers (and hence infinitesimally small ones as well). This is something that may be philosophically challenging to a Platonist. It's not just that we are talking about infinity but its quality here is of a particular kind.
    [Show full text]
  • Nonstandard Functional Interpretations and Categorical Models
    Nonstandard functional interpretations and categorical models Amar Hadzihasanovic∗ and Benno van den Berg† 4 February 2014 Abstract Recently, the second author, Briseid and Safarik introduced nonstandard Dialectica, a func- tional interpretation that is capable of eliminating instances of familiar principles of nonstan- dard arithmetic - including overspill, underspill, and generalisations to higher types - from proofs. We show that, under few metatheoretical assumptions, the properties of this interpre- tation are mirrored by first order logic in a constructive sheaf model of nonstandard arithmetic due to Moerdijk, later developed by Palmgren. In doing so, we also draw some new connections between nonstandard principles, and principles that are rejected by strict constructivism. Furthermore, we introduce a variant of the Diller-Nahm interpretion with two different kinds of quantifiers (with and without computational meaning), similar to Hernest’s light Dialectica interpretation, and show that one can obtain nonstandard Dialectica from this by weakening the computational content of the existential quantifiers – a process we call herbrandisation. We also define a constructive sheaf model mirroring this new functional interpretation and show that the process of herbrandisation has a clear meaning in terms of these sheaf models. Contents 1 Introduction 2 2 The nonstandard Dialectica interpretation 3 ω∗ 2.1 The system E-HAst .................................... 3 2.2 The Dst translation..................................... 8 arXiv:1402.0784v1 [math.LO] 4 Feb 2014 3 The filter topos N 13 3.1 Thefilterconstruction ............................... .... 13 3.2 Characteristic principles . .... 18 4 The uniform Diller-Nahm interpretation 22 4.1 Calculability and herbrandisation . .... 23 4.2 The U translation ..................................... 25 4.3 De-herbrandisation and the topos U ..........................
    [Show full text]