Extending the Algebraic Manipulability of Differentials

Jonathan Bartlett1 and Asatur Zh. Khurshudyan2

1 The Blyth Institute, [email protected]
arXiv:1801.09553v2 [math.GM] 20 Aug 2018

2 Institute of Mechanics, NAS of Armenia

August 21, 2018

Abstract with each other, represent the limit of that ratio as

the changes get smaller and smaller. However, many
were not pleased with the limit notion, preferring to
Treating differentials as independent algebraic units view dx and dy as distinct mathematical objects.
have a long history of use and abuse. It is generally
considered problematic to treat the derivative as a frac- This question over the ontological status of differen-
tion of differentials rather than as a holistic unit acting tials was somewhat paralleled by preferences in nota-
as a limit, though for practical reasons it is often done tion. Those favoring the validity of infinitesimals gen-
for the first derivative. However, using a revised nota- erally preferred the Leibniz notation, where dx and dy
tion for the second and higher derivatives will allow for are at least visually represented as individual units,
the ability to treat differentials as independent units while those favoring the limit conception of the deriva-
for a much larger number of cases. tive generally prefer the Lagrange notation, where the
derivative is a holistic unit.

In an interesting turn of events, in the late 19th century,

1 Introduction the Leibniz notation for the derivative largely won out,
but the Langrangian conception of the derivative has
been the favored intellectual interpretation of it. Essen-
The calculus of variations has had a long, rich history, tially, this means that equations are generally written
with many competing notations and interpretations. as if there were distinct differentials available, but they
The fluxion was the original concept of the derivative are manipulated as if they only represent limits of a
invented by Isaac Newton, and even had a notation ratio which cannot be taken apart.
similar to the modern Lagrange notation. A compet-
ing notation for the derivative is the Leibniz notation, This dichotomy has led to an unfortunate lack of devel-
where the derivative is expressed as a ratio of differen- opment of the notation. Because it is generally assumed
tials, representing arbitrarily small (possibly infinitesi- that differentials are not independent algebraic units,
mal) differences in each variable. the fact that issues arise when treating them as such
has not caused great concern, and has simply reinforced
The calculus was originally thought of as examining the idea that they should not be treated algebraically.
infinitely small quantities. When these infinitely small Therefore, there has been little effort to improve the
quantities were put into ratio with each other, the result notation to allow for a more algebraic treatment of in-
could potentially be within the reals (a likely result dividual differentials.
for smooth, continuous functions). But, on their own,
these infinitesimals were thought of as infinitely close However, as will be shown, the algebraic manipulability
to zero. of differentials can be greatly expanded if the notation
for higher-order derivatives is revised. This leads to an
The concept of an infinitesimal caused a great deal of overall simplification in working with calculus for both
difficulty within mathematics, and therefore calculus students and practitioners, as it allows items which are
was revised for the derivative to represent the limit written as fractions to be treated as fractions. It pre-
of a ratio. In such a conception, dx and dy are not vents students from making mistakes, since their natu-
really independent units, but, when placed in ratio

1
ral inclination is to treat differentials as fractions.1 Ad- Say that it is later discovered that x is a function of t
ditionally, there are several little-known but extremely so that x = t 2 . The problem here is that the chain rule
helpful formulas which are straightforwardly deducible for the second derivative is not the same as what would
from this new notation. be implied by the algebraic representation.

Even absent these practical concerns, we find that Here we arrive at one of the major problematic points
reconceptualizing differentials in terms of algebraically- for using the current notation of the second derivative
manipulable terms is an interesting project in its own algebraically. To demonstrate the problem explicitly, if
right, and perhaps may help us see the derivative in a one were to take the second derivative seriously as a set
2
new way, and adapt it to new uses in the future. There of algebraic units, one should be able to multiply ddxy2
may also be additional formulas which can in the future 2
by ddxt 2 to get the second derivative of y with respect to
be more directly connected to the algebraic formulation t. However, this does not work. If the differentials are
of the derivative. 2
being treated as algebraic units, then ddxt 2 is the same as


dx 2
dt , which is just the first derivative of x with respect
to t squared. The first derivative of x with respect to
2 The Problem of Manipulating t is ddxt = 2t. Therefore, treating the second derivative
algebraically would imply that all that is needed to do
Differentials Algebraically to convert the second derivative of y with respect to x
into the second derivative of y with respect to t is to
When dealing with the first derivative, there are gen- multiply by (2t)2 .
erally few practical problems in treating differentials
However, this reasoning leads to the false conclusion
algebraically. If y is a function of x, then ddxy is the first 2

derivative of y with respect to x. This can generally be that ddt 2y = 24t 4 . If, instead, the substitution is done
treated as a fraction. at the beginning, it can be easily seen that the result
should be 30t 4 :
For instance, since ddxy is the first derivative of x with re- y = x3
spect to y, it is easy to see that these values are merely
the inverse of each other. The inverse function theo- x = t2
rem of calculus states that ddxy = d1y . The generaliza- y = (t 2 )3
dx
tion of this theorem into the multivariable domain es- y = t6
sentially provides for fraction-like behavior within the y ′ = 6t 5
first derivative.
y ′′ = 30t 4
Likewise, in preparation for integration, both sides of
the equation can be multiplied by dx. Even in multi- This is also shown by the true chain rule for the sec-
variate equations, differentials can essentially be mul- ond derivative, based on Faà di Bruno’s formula [2].
tiplied and divided freely, as long as the manipulations This formula says that the chain rule for the second
are dealing with the first derivative. derivative should be:
 2
Even the chain rule goes along with this. Let x depend d2 y d2 y dx dy d2 x
= + (1)
on parameter u. If one has the derivative dduy and mul- dt 2 dx 2 dt dx dt 2
tiplies it by the derivative ddux then the result will be This, however, is extremely unintuitive, and essentially
dy makes a mockery out of the concept of using the differ-
d x . This is identical to the chain rule in Lagrangian
notation. ential as an algebraic unit.

It is well recognized that problems occur when if one It is generally assumed that this is a problem for the
tries to extend this technique to the second derivative idea that second differentials should be treated as alge-
[1]. Take for a simple example the function y = x 3 . braic units. However, it is possible that the real prob-
The first derivative is ddxy = 3x 2 . The second derivative lem is that the notation for second differentials has not
d2 y been given as careful attention as it should.
is dx 2
= 6x.
1 Since many in the engineering disciplines are not formally The habits of mind that have come from this have even
trained mathematicians, this also can prevent professionals in affected nonstandard analysis, where, despite their ap-
applied fields from making similar mistakes. preciation for the algebraic properties of differentials,

2
have left the algebraic nature of the second derivative dx as separate steps. Originally, in the Leibnizian con-
either unexamined (as in [3]) or examined poorly (i.e., ception of the differential, one did not even bother solv-
leaving out the problematic nature of the second deriva- ing for derivatives, as they made little sense from the
tive, as in [4, pg. 4]). original geometric construction of them [5, pgs. 8, 59].

For a simple example, the differential of x 3 can be found

using a basic differential operator such that d(x 3 ) =
3 A Few Notes on Differential 3x 2 dx. The derivative is simply the differential divided
3
Notation by dx. This would yield dd(xx ) = 3x 2 .

For implicit derivatives, separating out taking the dif-

Most calculus students glaze over the notation for ferential and finding a particular derivative greatly sim-
higher derivatives, and few if any books bother to give plifies the process. Given an function (say, z2 = sin(q)),
any reasons behind what the notation means. It is im- the differential can be applied to both sides just like any
portant to go back and consider why the notation is other algebraic manipulation:
what it is, and what the pieces are supposed to repre-
sent. z2 = sin(q)
d(z2 ) = d(sin(q))
In modern calculus, the derivative is always taken with
2z dz = cos(q) dq
respect to some variable. However, this is not strictly
required, as the differential operation can be used in a From there, the equation can be manipulated to solve
context-free manner. The processes of taking a differ- for ddqz or ddqz , or it can just be left as-is.
ential and solving for a derivative (i.e., some ratio of
differentials) can be separated out into logically sepa- The basic differential of a variable is normally written
rate operations.2 simply as d(x) = dx. In fact, dx can be viewed merely
a shorthand for d(x).
In such an operation, instead of doing ddx (taking the
derivative with respect to the variable x), one would The second differential is merely the differential oper-
separate out performing the differential and dividing by ator applied twice [5, pg. 17]:
2 The idea that finding a differential (i.e., similar to a deriva-
d(d(x)) = d(dx) = d2 x (2)
tive, but not being with respect to any particular variable) can be
separated from the operation of finding a derivative (i.e., differ- Therefore, the second differential of a function is merely
entiating with respect to some particular variable) is considered
an anathema to some, but this concept can be inferred directly
the differential operator applied twice. However, one
from the activity of treating derivatives as fractions of differen- must be careful when doing this, as the product rule
tials. The rules for taking a differential are identical to those for affects products of differentials as well.
taking an implicit derivative, but simply leaving out dividing the
final differential by the differential of the independent variable. For instance, d(3x 2 dx) will be found using the product
For those uncomfortable with taking a differential without
a derivative (i.e., without specifying an independent variable), rule, where u = 3x 2 and v = dx. In other words:
imagine the differential operator d() as combining the operations
of taking an implicit derivative with respect to a non-present d(3x 2 dx) = 3x 2 (d(dx)) + d(3x 2 ) dx
variable (such as q) followed by a multiplication by the differ- = 3x 2 d2 x + 6x dx dx
ential of that variable (i.e., dq in this example). So, taking the
differential of e x is written as d(e x ) and the result of this opera- = 3x 2 d2 x + 6x dx 2
tion is e x dx. This is the same as if we had taken the derivative
2
with respect to the non-present variable q and then multiplied
by dq. So, for instance, taking the differential of the function
The point of all of this is to realize that the notation ddxy2
e x , the operation would start out with a derivative with respect is not some arbitrary arrangement of symbols, but has a
to q ddq (e x ) = e x dd qx followed by a multiplication by dq, yielding deep (if, as will be shown, slightly incorrect or mislead-
just e x dx. ing) meaning. The notation means that the equation
Doing this yields the standard set of differential rules, but al- is showing the ratio of the second differential of y (i.e.,
lows them to be applied separately from (and prior to) a full
derivative. Also note that because they have no dependency on d(d(y))) to the square of dx (i.e., dx 2 ).3
any variable present in the equation, the rules work in the single-
variable and multi-variable case. Solving for a derivative is then In other words, starting with y, then applying the dif-
merely solving for a ratio of differentials that arise after perform- ferential operator twice, and then dividing by dx twice,
ing the differential. It unifies explicit and implicit differentiation
into a unified process that is easier to teach, use, and under- 3 In Leibniz notation, dx 2 is equivalent to (dx)2 . If the differ-

stand, and requires few if any special cases, save the standard ential of x 2 was wanted, it would be written as d(x 2 ). The rules
requirements of continuity and smoothness. are given in [5, pg. 24].

3
 2 2
arrives at the result ddxy2 . Unfortunately, that is not the in (3) is that the ratio ddxx2 reduces to zero. However,
same sequence of steps that happens when two deriva- this is not necessarily true. The concern is that, since
dx d2 x
tives are performed, and thus it leads to a faulty for- d x is always 1 (i.e., a constant), then d x 2 should be
mulation of the second derivative. zero. The problem with this concern is that we are no
2
longer taking ddxx2 to be the derivative of ddxx . Using the
notation in (3), the derivative of ddxx would be:
4 Extending the Second Deriva- dx


d dx d2 x dx d2 x
tive’s Algebraic Manipulabil- = − (5)
dx dx 2 dx dx 2
ity In this case, since ddxx reduces to 1, the expression is ob-
2
viously zero. However, in (5), the term ddxx2 is not itself
As a matter of fact, order of operations is very impor- necessarily zero, since it is not the second derivative of
tant when doing derivatives. When doing a derivative, x with respect to x.
one first takes the differential and then divides by dx.
The second derivative is the derivative of the first, so
the next differential occurs after the first derivative is
complete, and the process finishes by dividing by dx 5 The Notation for the Higher
again. Order Derivatives
However, what does it look like to take the differential
of the first derivative? Basic calculus rules tell us that The notation for the third and higher derivatives can
the quotient rule should be used: be found using the same techniques as for the second
  derivative. To find the third derivative of y with respect
dy dx(d(dy)) − dy(d(dx))
d = to x, one starts with the second derivative and takes the
dx (dx)2
differential:
 
dx d y − dy d2 x
2
=
dx 2 © d dx ª
dy

d­­ ®
dx ®
2
dx d y dy d2 x
= −
«  ¬
dx 2 dx 2
dx d y dy d2 x
2 
= − d2 y dy d2 x
dx dx dx dx =d −
dx 2 dx dx 2
d2 y dy d2 x  
= − dx d2 y − dy d2 x
dx dx dx =d
dx 3
Then, for the second step, this can be divided by dx,
(dx 3 )(d(dx d2 y − dy d2 x)) − (dx d2 y − dy d2 x)(d(dx 3 ))
yielding:   =
d ddyx (dx 3 )2
d2 y dy d2 x
= 2− (3) d3 y dy d3 x d2 x d2 y dy (d2 x)2
dx dx dx dx 2 = 2− 2
−3 2 +3
dx dx dx dx dx dx dx 3
This, in fact, yields a notation for the second derivative
which is equally algebraically manipulable as the first Finally, this result is divided by dx:
derivative. It is not very pretty or compact, but it !
works algebraically. d
( ddyx )
d
dx
d3 y d y d3 x 2 2
(d2 x)2
The chain rule for the second derivative fits this al- dx = dx 3
− dx dx 3 − 3 ddxx2 ddxy2 + 3 ddxy dx 4
(6)
gebraic notation correctly, provided we replace each
instance of the second derivative with its full form This expression includes a lot of terms not normally
(cf. (1)): seen, so some explanation is worthwhile. In this ex-
 
 
d2 y
− d y d2 x
= d2 y
− d y d2 x dx 2
+ dy d2 x
− d x d2 t
(4) pression, d2 x represents the second differential of x, or
dt 2 dt d x 2 dx 2 dx dx 2 dt dx dt 2 dt dt 2
d(d(x)). Therefore, (d2 x)2 represents (d(d(x)))2 . Like-
This in fact works out perfectly algebraically. wise, dx 4 represents (d(x))4 .

One objection that has been given to the present au- Because the expanded notation for the second and
thors by early reviewers about the formula presented higher derivatives is much more verbose than the first

4
derivative, it is often useful to adopt a slight modifi- this on the second derivative:
cation of Arbogast’s D notation (see [6, pgs. 209,218– d2 y dy d2 x
219]) for the total derivative instead of writing it as D2x y = 2 −
dx dx dx 2
algebraic differentials:4 dx 3
d y dx 3 dy d2 x dx 3
2
D2x y 3 = 2 3 −
dy dx dy dx dx 2 dy 3
d2 y dy d2 x  3
D2x y = − (7) dx d y dx d2 x
2
dx 2 dx dx 2 D2x y = 2 −
dy dy dy dy 2
d3 y dy d3 x
D3x y = 3 − − 3
d2 x d2 y
+ 3
dy (d2 x)2
(8)  3
dx dx dx 3 dx 2 dx 2 dx dx 4 dx d2 x dx d2 y
−D2x y = 2−
dy dy dy dy 2
This gets even more important as the number of deriva- !3
1 d2 x dx d2 y
tives increases. Each one is more unwieldy than the −D2x y dy = 2 −
previous one. However, each level can be interconverted dy dy dy 2
 3
dx
into differential notation as follows: 1 d2 x dx d2 y
−D2x y = −
D1x y dy 2 dy dy 2
d(Dxn−1 y)
Dxn y = (9) It can be seen that this final equation is the derivative
dx
of x with respect to y. Therefore, it can generally be
The advantages of Arbogast’s notation over Lagrangian stated that the second derivative of y with respect to x
notation are that (1) this modification of Arbogast’s can be transformed into the second derivative of x with
respect to y with the following formula:
 3
notation clearly specifies both the top and bottom dif-
ferential, and (2) for very high order derivatives, La- 2 1
grangian notation takes up n superscript spaces to write − Dx y = Dy2 x (10)
D1x y
for the nth derivative, while Arbogast’s notation only
To see this formula in action on a simple equation, con-
takes up log(n) spaces.
sider y = x 3 . Performing two derivatives gives us:
Therefore, when a compact representation of higher or- y = x3 (11)
der derivatives is needed, this paper will use Arbogast’s
D1x y = 3x 2
(12)
notation for its clarity and succinctness.5
D2x y = 6x (13)
According to (10), Dy2 x
(or, x ′′
in Lagrangian notation)
can be found by performing the following:
6 Swapping the Independent  3
1
Dy2 x = −(6x)
and Dependent Variables 3x 2
−6x
=
27x 6
In fact, just as the algebraic manipulation of the first −2 −5
derivative can be used to convert the derivative of y = x (14)
9
with respect to x into the derivative of x with respect to
This can be checked by taking successive derivatives of
y, combining it with Arbogast’s notation for the second
the inverse function of (11):
derivative can be used to generate the formula for doing
1
x = y3
4
The difference between this notation and that of Arbogast is 1 −2
Dy1 x = y 3
that we are subscripting the D with the variable with which the 3
derivative is being taken with respect to. Additionally, we are 2 −5
2
always supplying in the superscript the number of derivatives we Dy x = − y 3 (15)
are taking. Therefore, where Arbogast would write simply D, 9
this notation would be written as D 1x . (15) can be seen to be equivalent to (14) by substituting
5 It may be surprising to find a paper on the algebraic no-
for y using (11):
tation of differentials using a non-algebraic notation. The goal,
however, is to only use ratios when they act as ratios. When 2 −5
writing a ratio that works like a ratio is too cumbersome, we Dy2 x = − (x 3 ) 3
9
prefer simply avoiding the ratio notation altogether, to prevent
making unwarranted leaps based on notation that may mislead
2 −5
=− x (16)
the intuition. 9

5
This is the same result achieved by using the inversion the real exact solutions of which is
formula (cf. (10)). √3
6 2c1
y(x) = r q −
3 3 2
162(x + c2 ) + 23328c1 + [162(x + c2 )]
r q
7 Using the Inversion Formula
23328c13 + [162(x + c2 )]2
3
162(x + c2 ) +
for the Second Derivative − √3
3 2
(19)
While the inversion formula (cf. (10)) is not original,
it is a tool that many mathematicians are unaware of, Here c1 and c2 are integration constants that must be
and is rarely considered for solving higher-order differ- determined from given boundary or Cauchy conditions.
entials.6
On the other hand, (18) results in
As an example of how to apply (10), consider second y3
x(y) = + c1 y + c2,
order ordinary nonlinear differential equations of the 6
form the real inverse of which exactly coincides with (19).
F (y ′′, y ′, y) = 0.

Equations of this form can be solved implicitly for

8 Relationship to Historic Leib-
F (a, b, c) = a − b3 f (c) nizian Thought
for generic function f . Indeed, consider the equation
 3 The view of differentials presented by Leibniz and those
dy following in his footsteps differed significantly from the
D2x y = f (y) (17)
modern-day view of calculus. The modern view of cal-
.
dx
culus focuses on functions, which have defined inde-
Then, by virtue of (10) we derive pendent and dependent variables. The Leibniz view,
however, according to [5], is a much more geometric
Dy2 x = − f (y). view. There is no preferred independent or dependent
variable.
Integration of this equation with respect to y twice will
provide with The modern concept of the derivative generally implies
∫ ∫ a dependent and in independent variable. The numer-
ator is the dependent variable and the denominator is
x(y) = − f (y) dy dy. (18)
the independent variable. In the geometric view, how-
ever, there are only relationships, and these relation-
ships do not necessarily have an implied dependency
For simplicity, let relationship.
f (y) = y,
Therefore, Leibnizian differentiation doesn’t occur with
so that (17) is reduced to respect to any independent variable. There is no pre-
 3 ferred independent variable. Likewise, as we have seen
dy in Sections 6 and 7, the version of the differential pre-
D2x y = y ,
dx sented here allows for the reversal of variable depen-
dency relationships. Similarly, the procedure of differ-
6 The authors of this paper, as well as several early reviewers, entiation given in Section 3 which allows us to formu-
had originally thought that the inversion formula was a new find-
ing. Again, that is the usefulness of the notation. Specific formu- late the new notation for the second derivative given in
las such as the inversion formula do not need to be taught, as they (3) follows the Leibnizian methodology, where the dif-
simply flow naturally out of the notation. Even though the inver- ferentiation is done mechanically without considering
sion formula is not new with this paper, showing how the present variable dependencies.
authors were able to use it to good benefit demonstrates the ben-
efit of an improved notation—practitioners needs not memorize
endless formulas, but they can be developed straightforwardly as Leibniz did, however, consider certain kinds of variables
needed based upon basic intuitions. which map very directly to what we would consider as

6
“independent” variables. In the Leibniz conception, However, if we assume that x is truly the independent
what we would consider an “independent” variable is variable, then this means that d2 x = 0 and therefore
2
a variable whose first derivative is considered constant. the whole expression ddxy ddxx2 reduces to 0 as well. This
2
This leads to numerous simplifications of differentials reduces (3) to the modern notation of ddxy2 . Addition-
because, if a differential is constant, by standard differ- ally, if we take the assumption that x is the independent
ential rules its differential is zero. Therefore, if x is the variable, then the problems identified in Section 2 dis-
independent variable (using modern terminology) then appear, because x, as an independent variable, cannot
that implies that dx is constant. If dx is a constant then be dependent on t.8
(even if it is an infinitely small, unknowable constant),
2
then that means that its differential is zero. There- In addition to (3) being reducible to ddxy2 under the as-
fore, d2 x and higher differentials of x reduce to zero, sumption that x is the independent variable, the Leib-
simplifying the equation.7 nizian view also gives a set of tools that allows us to
2
reinflate instances of ddxy2 into (3). Euler showed that,
As an example, given the equation
given an equation from a specific “progression of vari-
xy = 3 ables” (i.e., a particular choice of an independent vari-
able), we can modify that equation in order to see what
the first differential of this would be given by it would have been if no choice of independent vari-
able had been made. According to [5, pg. 75], the sub-
x dy + y dx = 0 stitution for reinflating a differential from a particular
progression of variables (i.e., a particular independent
and the second differential of this would be given by
variable) into one that is independent of the progres-
x d2 y + 2 dx dy + y d2 x = 0. sion of variables (i.e., no independent variable chosen),
an expansion practically identical to (3) can be used.
Then, you could simplify the equation by choosing any
single differential to hold constant. This is referred
to in Leibnizian thought as choosing a “progression of
variables,” and it is identical to choosing an indepen-
9 Future Work
dent variable [5, pg. 71]. Therefore, if one chooses x
as the independent variable, then dx is constant, and The notation presented here provides for a vast im-
therefore d2 x = 0. Thus, the equation reduces to provement in the ability for higher order differentials
to be manipulated algebraically.
x d2 y + 2 dx dy = 0.
This improved notation yields several potential areas
However, if y is the independent variable, then dy is
for study. These include:
held constant and therefore its differential, d2 y = 0.
This leads to the equation
1. developing a general formula for the algebraic ex-
2 dx dy + y d2 x = 0. pansion of higher derivatives,
This understanding explains the success of the modern 2. identifying additional second order differential
notation of the second derivative. The notation given equations that are solvable by swapping the de-
in (3) is pendent and independent variable,
d2 y dy d2 x
D2x = 2 − . 3. finding other ways that differential equations can
dx dx dx 2
7
be rendered solvable using insights from the new
As a way of understanding this, imagine the common inde-
pendent variable used in physics, especially prior to relativity—
notation,
time. Especially consider the way that time flows in a pre-
relativistic era. It flows in a continual, constant fashion. There- 4. finding further reductions in special formulas that
fore, if the flow of time (i.e., dt) is constant, then by the rules of can be rendered by using algebraically manipulable
differentiation the second differential of time must be zero. Thus, notations,
an independent variable is one which acts in a similar fashion to
time. Another way to consider this is to consider the indepen- 8 To be clear, there is nothing preventing someone from mak-

dence of the independent variable. It’s changes (i.e., differences) ing an independent variable dependent on a parameter. However,
are, by definition, independent of anything else. Therefore, we doing so then brings them around to needing to use the form of
may not assign a rule about the differences between the values. the second derivative defined here (which does not presume a
Thus, because there is no valid rule, the second differential may particular choice of independent variable), or a compensating
not be zero, but it is at most undefinable by definition. mechanism such as Faà di Bruno’s formula.

7
 5. investigating the conjecture that the second differ-
ential of independent variables are always zero and
its potential implications, and
6. extending this project to allow partial differentials
to be algebraically manipulable.

10 Acknowledgements

The authors would like to thank Aleks Kleyn, Chris

Burba, Daniel Lichtblau, George Montañez, and others
who read early versions of this manuscript and provided
important feedback and suggestions.

References
[1] E. W. Swokowski, Calculus with Analytic Geome-
try. PWS Publishers, alternate ed., 1983.
[2] W. P. Johnson, “The curious history of Fa‘a
di Bruno’s formula,” American Mathematical
Monthly, pp. 217–234, 2002.
[3] J. M. Henle and E. M. Kleinberg, Infinitesimal Cal-
culus. Dover Publications, 1979.
[4] H. J. Keisler, Elementary Calculus: An Infinitesi-
mal Approach. PWS Publishers, second ed., 1985.
[5] H. J. M. Bos, “Differentials, higher-order differen-
tials, and the derivative in the Leibnizian calculus,”
Archive for History of Exact Sciences, vol. 14, no. 1,
pp. 1–90, 1974.
[6] F. Cajori, A History of Mathematical Notations
Volume II. Open Court Publishing, 1929.