Notation for Differentiation There are two main types of notation used to denote the derivative of a function. Lagrange’s Notation is to write the derivative of the function f(z) as f(z) Leibniz’s Notation is to write the derivative of the function f as f da Two other notations are worth mentioning Newton’s Notation is to write the derivative of y using a dot y Euler’s Notation is to use a capital D ic Dz f(x) The Lagrange and Leibniz notation will be considered in some situations in- volving differentiation. It may be that the comments are influenced too much by the particular methods of teaching received by the author. Any further comments are welcome.1. Functions of a single variable (a) Basic Lagrange | Leibniz Function J(e) f d Derivative (2) a dx 2 2nd Derivative f"(x) ef Higher Derivative | f(a) es dx* Integral [ Movae Comments For the higher derivatives the (n) is a little cumbersome and can possible be mistaken for an index. An integral is rarely seen without a dz so there is no entry in the Lagrange Column(b) Differentiation Rules Product Rule u(x)u(x)]! = u(x)v'(x) + v(x)u'(x) Lagrange Leibniz Chain Rule Lagrange Leibniz Comments Neither set looks comlortable in its entirety. The most comfortable may be a mixture such as 4 f(g(x))] = f'lg(a)] x 9'(2) dz Tmplicit Differentiation | (say of 227 + sin(f) — 0) Lagrange x2 f"(a) + 2x f(x) + cos[r f(a)|[f(@) + 2f"(2)] = 0 of dj Leibniz + 2ef teosla f(s +2) =0 Comments The Leibniz notation looks more natural here.Logarithmic Differentiation (say of f = (a + 1)%(sin x)" (2? — 1)) “(x 8x Lagrange f(a) _ + Teote + f(z) ld 5 Leibniz oo : > [ t Teota + Comments Not a great deal to choose between them here. Parametric Differentiation (say of f =t+sint, t? — cost) Lagrange Leibniz Comments The Leibniz notation seems to cope better with the different variables f(t) = 1+ cost; x’(t) = 2t+sint 1+ cost My) = — TOBE f@) 2t+sint df dx: Fb cost: = 28 4 8 Fm Lt costs Gp = At + sint df st dx 2t+sint( c) Integration Integration by parts | Lagrange | u(x)o'(x) dr = u(2)v(a) / v(a)u (x) dx Leibniz dv 1 du 1 — dx xv- foe uz dr =uxe vg, dx Comments The Lagrange notation is certainly more common here Lagrange Arc Length f VI+ [FOR dx Leibniz Other Comments Not a great deal to choose between the two. Differential Equations Lagrange Leibniz "(x) + 2x f(x) = 2? sinx dj oo onp = xtsine dxComments The Leibniz notation is more common here. The application to separable equations may be seen as a gimic by some Taylor Series Lagrange — | f(z) = f(a) + (2 - a) f"(a) + 4/"(a) Leibniz | f = fl, wt te-o) El = He- a) a * 2. Functions of Two V (a) Basic iables mments The Lagrange notation is certainly more common here Lagrange Leibniz, ] Function S(x,y) f | of of Derivative tes fy De’ By 2nd Derivati Fees fey Fay rf PF PF Dat! Day’ Dy? Higher Derivative Sexzyy Comments A long series of subscripts can start to look a bit clumsy.(b) Other Chain Rule S(2) = f(wu(z) + Fe) Lagrange af _ ofan | Leibniz Ou dx Comments Both notations are used commonly Jacobian (in double integral) Lagrange Ox dy Ox dy Leibniz Comments The Liebniz notation is certainly more common hereTaylor Series Lagrange F(2,Y) = f(20, yo) + (@ = 0) fe (20; Yo) + (y — yo) Fy(x0, Yo)+ 3 [(@ — 0)? fer(0, yo) + (# ~ 270)(y — yo) fey(0, Yo) + +(y ~ yo)” fuy(o: yo)] + Leibniz E=20,V=W0, Comments The Lagrange notation looks more comfortable here Partial Differential Equation Lagrange Leibniz xf, —2xyfy = 1 Comments Again, the Licbniz notation is certainly more common here.Checking PDE Solution ° Hop? 1 Lagrange fe = 2xygl(2®y) + x fy = 2? 9'(x7y) Leibniz oF ax af ay Comments The Leibniz notation is having difficulty here with terms ag(?y) such as 3 O(x?y) being extremely clumsy. In general, the Leibniz notation r ts more comfortably with these examples. However, there were several cases where the Lagrange notation had a slight advantage. For the final case of checking the solution of a partial differential equation, this w: large and significant advantage.