The ways of a crow — that’s calculus in motion

The ways of a crow — that’s calculus in motion

Image by Alexandra from Pixabay

Originally published 19 February 1995

A crow in a snowy dawn.

It hopped into the air, imprint­ing the snow with its black-fin­gered wings. Pushed, pushed, pushed, heav­i­ly upwards, search­ing for updrafts, gain­ing alti­tude in the glassy light. A grace­ful slide, tilt­ing, bal­anc­ing like a high­wire artist. Then, with a few awk­ward flaps, it came to rest in the top boughs of a pine.

Sud­den­ly it occurred to me, some­thing that had not passed my mind before: My per­cep­tions of the crow had been edu­cat­ed 40 years ago in a col­lege course called Cal­cu­lus 101.

The poet Wal­lace Stevens titled a poem Thir­teen Ways of Look­ing at a Black­bird. I had just become con­scious of way No. 14.

A crow — and calculus?

Let me start at the beginning.

Some­where about the sec­ond or third week of every uni­ver­si­ty cal­cu­lus course, the stu­dent is intro­duced to the con­cept of a lim­it. In my text­book, the def­i­n­i­tion was as fol­lows. I quote it in full, per­verse­ly, know­ing that I risk los­ing my readers.

DEFINITION: Let f(x,Δx) be defined for some fixed val­ue of x and for all val­ues of Δx (dif­fer­ent from zero) in some inter­val -h<Δx<+h, that is, for -h<Δx<0 and for 0<Δx<+h. Let there be a num­ber L(x) (which may depend upon x), such that to any pos­i­tive num­ber ε, there cor­re­sponds a pos­i­tive num­ber δ, 0<δ<h, hav­ing the prop­er­ty that f(x,Δx) dif­fers from L(x) by less than ε when |Δx| is dif­fer­ent from zero and is less than δ. That is, if 0<|Δx|<δ, then |f(x,Δx) — L(x)|<ε.

This pas­sage was the most incom­pre­hen­si­ble thing I had read in my life. It was append­ed to the state­ment “These pre­lim­i­nary remarks should now enable us to understand…”

Of course, I did not understand.

I doubt if any first-year cal­cu­lus stu­dent reach­es this point in the course with understanding.

Still, I was smart enough to know that if I side­stepped this ini­tial hur­dle I would nev­er grasp what fol­lowed. So I beat my head against it for a week until the light bulb final­ly went on. I fig­ured out the def­i­n­i­tion of a limit.

The rest, as they say, was a piece of cake. The study of cal­cu­lus became pure bliss. No kid­ding. Maybe I was weird or some­thing, but I remem­ber cal­cu­lus as being the neat­est thing I encoun­tered in college.

But it was a cold neat­ness, abstract, appar­ent­ly use­less. Oh yeah, I took my degree in physics, and physi­cists use cal­cu­lus to express the laws of nature. But it was a fun­ny sort of nature we stud­ied in physics — with­out crows, or snow, or the marks of wings in snow. I was look­ing for some­thing warmer, more con­crete, more imme­di­ate. As the years passed I drift­ed from physics into writing.

And for­got about calculus.

But some­thing inerad­i­ca­ble had been plant­ed in my mind. Some­thing about flow. About trans­for­ma­tion. About con­tin­u­ous change.

Some­thing about birds sculling snowy air.

Cal­cu­lus was invent­ed in the 17th cen­tu­ry by Isaac New­ton and Got­tfried Leib­nitz specif­i­cal­ly as a lan­guage to describe flow and change. What today we call a dif­fer­en­tial in cal­cu­lus, New­ton called the “moment of a flu­ent” and 18th cen­tu­ry math­e­mati­cians called a “flux­ion.” Flu­ent, flux, flow; it’s all the same.

It’s there, invis­i­ble, in the way the crow makes its way on air from snow to bough.

The poet Mar­i­anne Moore wrote: “The pow­er of the vis­i­ble is the invis­i­ble.” Cal­cu­lus is about invis­i­bles — the infi­nite and the infin­i­tes­i­mal. That’s what the cryp­tic def­i­n­i­tion of a lim­it is all about. A way to talk mean­ing­ful­ly about unseeables.

Con­sid­er the thing we call a deriv­a­tive in cal­cu­lus: It is the lim­it of a ratio of two num­bers that sep­a­rate­ly van­ish into noth­ing­ness, leav­ing behind some­thing spooky but pal­pa­bly real — the deriv­a­tive — like the grin of the Cheshire cat. Cal­cu­lus is the study of grins. The cat itself, the haughty, fur­ry, ball of purr, is a sub­ject for nat­u­ral­ists and poets.

At some point in my life, I aban­doned cal­cu­lus for the lan­guage of nat­u­ral­ists and poets because I could­n’t make the con­nec­tion between the grin and the cat. Like Mar­i­anne Moore, I knew that the pow­er of the vis­i­ble is invis­i­ble, but I was tired of math­e­mat­i­cal abstractions.

Which brings me back to the crow.

Way No. 14: A flux of feath­ers, a flow of air.

As I watched that heap of shine and feath­ers hop, flap and sail itself up into the pine, I real­ized that the crow was a beau­ti­ful phys­i­cal embod­i­ment of those abstract dif­fer­en­tial equa­tions I stud­ied long ago. Cal­cu­lus was invent­ed as a lan­guage for describ­ing con­tin­u­ous change in nature.

Watch­ing the crow I was an eaves­drop­per, lis­ten­ing in on nature’s con­ver­sa­tion with herself.

Share this Musing: