I'm currently working my way through chapter 4 of Griffith's Introduction to Electrodynamics (4th ed) and I ran into an issue with his notation.
In chapter 4 sectin two, when calculating the electric potential of a polarized object with polarization $\mathbf{P}$, he eventually gets to this expression
$V(\mathbf{r}) = \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\oint_S \frac{1}{\mathscr{R}} \mathbf{P}\cdot d\mathbf{a}' - \frac{1}{4\pi\epsilon_0}\int_V\frac{1}{\mathscr{R}}\left(\nabla' \cdot \mathbf{P}\right)d\tau'$
where $\mathscr{R} = |\mathbf{r} - \mathbf{r}'|$. I understand the derivation up until here. In the next part he claims we can define a bound volume charge density $\rho_b = -\nabla \cdot \mathbf{P}$. This is where I get confused. Where did the prime on the del operator go? At first I though this was a typo, but then in section 3 he defines Gauss' law inside a dielectric as
$\epsilon_0 \nabla \cdot \mathbf{E} = \rho_b + \rho_f = -\nabla \cdot \mathbf{P} + \rho_f$
This is then used to group $\mathbf{E}$ and $\mathbf{P}$ inside the same del operator when defining the electric displacement. So it seems like for the rest of the chapter to work out, it must be the case that $\rho_b = -\nabla \cdot \mathbf{P}$ and not $\rho_b = -\nabla' \cdot \mathbf{P}$. Is it the case that $\nabla \cdot \mathbf{P} = \nabla' \cdot \mathbf{P}$?