- My assumption here is that in the definition of elementary work :
$dW = F ds$
symbol $d$ represents a differential.
- But a differential implies a function :
$dy =_{df} d[f(x)] = f'(x) \Delta x = f'(x)dx$.
This is why, in order to better understand the notion of " elementary work" ( and in general, " elementary quantty" , such as " elementary displacement, etc. ), I'd like to express elementary work as the differential of a function.
Is this possible?
It seems to me that the function should have distance ( " s") as independent variable. Is it the case?
My question is not much about work than about the notation that (I believe) is used to define other physical quantities.
In University Physics ( vol.1) I find this ( with $dW$ standing for "increment of work", and $d\vec r$ standing for infinitesimal displacement):
$$dW= \vec F . d\vec r$$
(Source: text page 328 of https://d3bxy9euw4e147.cloudfront.net/oscms-prodcms/media/documents/UniversityPhysicsVolume1-LR.pdf)
(In the Wikipedia article, I find the same thing with "$\delta W$" instead of "$d W$", so $ \delta W = Fds$).
Should $dW$ (or $\delta W $) be understood as a differential (defined as: $dy = d[f(x)] = f'(x) dx$)?
I mean, is it correct to read the equation as a definition of the differential of the work function, say $W(s) =$ work done for a distance $s$?
Can the equation $d W= Fds$ be read as:
$$d(W(s)) = Fds~?$$
I guess I am wrong since, being given the general definition of a differential (i.e. $dy=d[f(x)] = f'(x)dx$), my last line would mean:
$$ d[W(s)] = W'(s)ds= F ds$$
implying that force $F$ is the derivative of work (which I don't think is true).
In brief (1) I don't understand the "small change" / "infinitesimal change" interpretation of $d$ (2) and the "differential" interpretation does not seem to work either.
So, please, what does $d$ rigorously mean? (Sorry, my style certainly lacks clarity, due to the confusion I'm in regarding this $d$-notation).
PS: another interpretation is that $dW$ is a derivative of the work function (since work is defined as the integral of $dW$). But in that case, why not use the ordinary derivative notation?