1
$\begingroup$

I have never seen this notation, but I think that it follows in a similar vein for function notation. So if $y=f(x)$, then $y''=f''(x)$.

Then by that, can we say that

$$f^{(n)}(x)=y^{(n)}$$

$\endgroup$
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ It is widely used, e.g. see Lagrange's notation. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jun 4 '18 at 18:30
  • $\begingroup$ If in doubt, when you use it explain it the first time. $\endgroup$ – Gerald Edgar Jun 4 '18 at 20:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Number actually it is Euler's notation $\endgroup$ – Michael Bächtold Jun 5 '18 at 5:15
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ It's common. The rationale is that it is hard to count 4 or 5 dashes. I have not seen any derivatives above 5 though, in the sciences (and even 4 or 5 are rare). I am used to seeing the 4 or 5 in Roman numerals, occasionally lower case. $\endgroup$ – guest Jun 5 '18 at 9:47
  • $\begingroup$ @MichaelBächtold My comment simply quotes the name of a section of the Wikipedia page. It was not meant to imply anything about the history. Do you know if Euler used it for general $n$ as in the final equation in the OP? (I don't see that in the link you gave). $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jun 5 '18 at 15:51
0
$\begingroup$

It can be used, but it's a bad piece notation, just as $y'$ is. I have two reasons for saying that.

  1. $y'$ doesn't indicate with respect to which variable you differentiate. So for example, if $y=t^2$ and $t=e^x$, what should $y'$ denote? Is it $dy/dt$ or $dy/dx$? I see students getting confused by this when they try to derive with the chain rule using the prime notation.

  2. Even if you object and say: in my context $y'$ will always denote derivative with respect to $x$, I still consider it a bad notation since it's the same notation we use for $f'$. Hence it suggest to students that $y$ and $f$ are the same type of objects.

The only justification I see for using it is laziness and tradition.

$\endgroup$
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ The prime notation, $x^{\prime}$, and dot notation, $\dot{x}$, are used when writing derivatives always with respect to a particular variable. They are far less cluttered visually than writing $\tfrac{dx}{dt}$. The same goes for the notation $x^{(4)}$, which is used in lieu of the visually cluttered $x^{\prime\prime\prime\prime}$ or $\tfrac{d^{4}x}{dt^{4}}$. These notations are used frequently in notationally heavy discussions in physical contexts, and the economy they provide is sometimes a virtue as it sometimes helps readability. $\endgroup$ – Dan Fox Jun 5 '18 at 7:36
  • $\begingroup$ @DanFox I am ware of that, but since this is a forum on teaching, I maintain that it is a bad choice. I have no problem with $\dot{x}$ since it doesn't suggest $x=f$. $\endgroup$ – Michael Bächtold Jun 5 '18 at 7:57
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ I disagree that it is (always) "bad notation". Mathematics is full of notation abbreviations (so-called "abuses") that greatly aid in eliminating obfuscatory cruft so that one can concentrate on the essence of the matter. A skilled writer knows how to choose optimal notation depending on the context. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jun 5 '18 at 16:00
  • $\begingroup$ Worth mention: there is further analogous discussion of notational "abuse" in Michael's MO question on the notation $ y = y(x)$. $\endgroup$ – Bill Dubuque Jun 5 '18 at 16:06
  • $\begingroup$ @Number: thanks for highlighting that discussion. Should anyone be interested in more on this, the topic has preoccupied me for some time now. $\endgroup$ – Michael Bächtold Jun 5 '18 at 20:46

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.