- #1
*melinda*
- 86
- 0
hi,
In a discussion of the historical motivations for a move from calculus to operators, my QM book says...
"Many mathematicians were uncomfortable with the 'metaphysical implications' of a mathematics formulated in terms of infinitesimal quantities (like dx). This disquiet was the stimulus for the development of the operator calculus."
This is all fine and well, but I just don't see how the use of operators let's one escape the 'uncomfortable metaphysical implications' of the calculus. I mean, you're still doing the same thing to a function with the only difference (as far as I can tell) being that you use a far more concise notation to get the same job done.
How is operator calculus so fundamentally different than plain old calculus? I just cannot see the big difference between the two.
In a discussion of the historical motivations for a move from calculus to operators, my QM book says...
"Many mathematicians were uncomfortable with the 'metaphysical implications' of a mathematics formulated in terms of infinitesimal quantities (like dx). This disquiet was the stimulus for the development of the operator calculus."
This is all fine and well, but I just don't see how the use of operators let's one escape the 'uncomfortable metaphysical implications' of the calculus. I mean, you're still doing the same thing to a function with the only difference (as far as I can tell) being that you use a far more concise notation to get the same job done.
How is operator calculus so fundamentally different than plain old calculus? I just cannot see the big difference between the two.