Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Comments on How to find dualized quantifier pairs in substitutionally quantified analysis?

Post

How to find dualized quantifier pairs in substitutionally quantified analysis?

+0
−1

Classically, $\exists$ and $\forall$ are dual. These don't seem to be the quantifiers Newton had quite in mind when differentiating. Suppose quantifiers attached separately to the x- and h-terms, "at least zero-many/much x or h." In this context, the h-terms are of a different sortal or typical aspect than the x-terms, and it's not that they themselves become 0 in the limit, but we consider the existential case where we toggle between "at least zero" and... what?

  1. Are there many and varying such dualities? Like (at least zero, at most zero), (at least zero, exactly zero) (roughly equivalent to the preceding, at least in outcome), (almost zero-much, almost all) (where -much is stronger than -many, passing from discrete cardinal magnitude to continuous material), etc.

  2. Is there a limit $(f: r \rightarrow 0) \circ (rh) = (0h)$? Is that one way to vanish the h-terms at the end of the derivative, by evaluating the model of the formula in which the h-subdomain is empty?

  • (For Newton, then: "kinematically," the h-variable could be any physical thing that admits of continuous determination in this sense. The h-terms, or Newton's counterparts, were not automatically overloaded with specific physical sense, like "h-much metal" or "h-many units of energy/force," but are simply from any sort "not merely numerical variables" in an at least two-sorted logic. So considering their empty subdomain is considering the case of the formula where its merely numerical factors "exist.")
History

2 comment threads

Missing context (1 comment)
Why "not the quantifiers Newton had in mind"? (1 comment)
Missing context
Peter Taylor‭ wrote 4 months ago

This needs more context to be intelligible. Where did Newton use quantifiers in his method of fluxions? What are $x-$ and $h-$terms?