| The article says: > The flaw they discovered is one of notation. I don't think the title is misleading given the clarity of the article. Like most titles regarding technical subjects, it needs to be carefully qualified to be understood. But was there a flaw of calculus notation? Bartlett introduces changes to Leibniz's notation that: 1. Allows for direct algebraic manipulation of differential relationships, for both simple and complex equations, and which extends very nicely to multivariable cases. 2. Makes understanding the relationships between higher order derivatives clearer. 3. Clearly highlights that differentials and derivatives are the two steps of differentiation. 4. Removes misunderstandings about Leibnitz's notation where the notation looks like a ratio, an interpretation that works for the first derivative, but confusingly and inconveniently does not for high order derivatives. 5. Results in equations with far fewer subscripts and superscripts. Surely a Fields Medal is in order? :) 6. Removes a now unnecessary concept from differential algebra (i.e. the Leibniz non-algebraic non-ratio). That last one simplifies the foundations of calculus, not just notation. Given that, it is a fix to calculus, not just its notation. |