Does anybody here think it's intentional? It seems like such a useful thing to know, why would anybody want to scrap that?
Asked
Active
Viewed 134 times
1
-
Yeah, I dont know, but I have noticed that students have become much more unfamillar with notation like $df=f^{\prime}dx$. I always have to explain the simpler notation for integration by parts. I suspect there is a general push on the part of lecturers against this notation, and this omission seems to be along those lines. (Ha, a pun !) – Rene Schipperus Mar 06 '18 at 02:58
-
Interesting, I wonder why. I mean, in this case it's clearly an important bit of notation being omitted here by the authors on the subject of surface integral notation, right? – Ius Klesar Mar 06 '18 at 02:59
-
I wouldn't say "property" in the question title when what is really involved is a notation. Frankly, unless the notation was used again in the chapter, defining it there seems pointless. Do students actually retain definitions that they don't use--even ones that they use a little but not a lot? Don't you end up having to teach the material again when you need it anyway? – David K Mar 06 '18 at 03:05
-
@DavidK Sure, but in the next section on Stokes' theorem, he ends up using the notation he left out in the new edition. Without explaining it... Doesn't seem very pedagogical. – Ius Klesar Mar 06 '18 at 03:08
-
2Well, that seems like a mistake. – David K Mar 06 '18 at 04:14