Partial Derivatives Instead of Implicit

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the use of partial derivatives in the context of implicit differentiation, specifically whether a formula derived from the implicit function theorem can yield the same results as traditional implicit differentiation methods. Participants explore the implications of this approach and its relation to the equality of mixed partial derivatives.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Jameson questions whether the formula from the implicit function theorem can be used instead of implicit differentiation and if it leads to the same results.
  • Daniel confirms the formula is from the implicit function theorem but does not elaborate on its application.
  • Some participants inquire about the conditions under which the right-hand side of the equation equals -1, suggesting a misunderstanding of the notation.
  • Quetzalcoatl9 raises a question about the equality of mixed partial derivatives, f_{xy} = f_{yx}, and its relevance to the discussion.
  • There is confusion regarding the notation used for partial derivatives, particularly the significance of the variable held constant during differentiation.
  • Daniel explains that the notation indicates which variables are constant during partial differentiation, particularly in thermodynamics.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of the notation and its application in different fields.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the application of partial derivatives and the notation used. There is no consensus on whether the original equation's right-hand side should equal -1, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the implications of mixed partial derivatives.

Contextual Notes

Participants demonstrate varying familiarity with the notation and its implications, particularly in different fields such as thermodynamics. There are unresolved questions about the assumptions underlying the use of partial derivatives in this context.

Jameson
Insights Author
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,533
Reaction score
13
On MathWorld's site, they said that

[tex](\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial{x}}){_f} = -\frac{(\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x}})_{y}}{(\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{y}})_{x}}[/tex]

So can this method be used instead of implicit differentiation? Will I get the same result? This seems kind of like a parametrics process if this is true.

Thanks,
Jameson
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Yep,that's the formula from the statement of the theorem of implicit functions.

Daniel.
 
Is that for f(x,y)? If so isn't the right hand side = -1?

y(f,x)?
 
yes, and there is nothing mysterious about this equation, btw:

for [itex]f(x,y) = 0[/itex]

[tex]df = \frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x}}dx + \frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{y}}dy = 0[/tex]

[tex]\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x}}dx = -\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{y}}dy[/tex]

[tex]\frac{dy}{dx} = -\frac{\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{x}}}{\frac{\partial{f}}{\partial{y}}}[/tex]
 
Quetzalcoatl9 I'm not sure if you addressed my question. Isnt there a theorem that says the double partial of a function with respect to alternating variables are equal?

[tex]f(x,y), f_{xy} = f_{yx}[/tex] Right? Isn't that what's going on here?
 
whozum said:
Quetzalcoatl9 I'm not sure if you addressed my question. Isnt there a theorem that says the double partial of a function with respect to alternating variables are equal?

[tex]f(x,y), f_{xy} = f_{yx}[/tex] Right? Isn't that what's going on here?

I don't understand what you are asking, whozum...do you mean to ask if partial derivatives commute?
 
I don't know what you mean by commute, but please verify that

[tex]For \ f(x,y), \ f_{xy} = f_{yx}[/tex]

If so, then please explain why the right hand side of the original OP's equation isn't just -1
 
If so, then please explain why the right hand side of the original OP's equation isn't just -1

where'd you get the idea the right side was -1?
 
[tex]\left(\frac{\delta f}{\delta x}\right)_y = f_{xy}[/tex]

[tex]\left(\frac{\delta f}{\delta y}\right)_x = f_{yx}[/tex]

[tex]f_{yx} = f_{xy}[/tex]

edit: I'm obviously missing something, I just want someone to point out what it is.
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Yes,you are.Missing something,that is.We use this notation

[tex]\left (\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\right)_{y}\equiv \frac{\partial f(x,y)}{\partial x}[/tex]

,that is we explain which variables are kept constant during the partial differentiaition,viz. "y" in this case.

This notation,or convention,if u prefer,is very common in thermodynamics.

Daniel.
 
  • #11
So that hanging y on the LHS is just to indicate that its constant, then. I had that confused as a derivative.
 
  • #12
The notation is excellent in a field like thermo-dynamics, where it is convenient to switch between which quantities are to be regarded as independent quantities and which are to be regarded as dependent quantities.

It is rather redundant in a field where there exisst a "natural" choice of the independent variables.
 
  • #13
To give u an idea

[tex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial V}[/tex]

,where F is the free energy/Helmholtz potential & V is the volume,doesn't mean anything in thermodynamics.

Daniel.
 
  • #14
Are you talking to me??
 
  • #15
Of course,not.I gave that example to Whozum...

Hmmmmm...:-p

Daniel.
 
  • #16
arildno said:
Are you talking to me??
...<in bronx-accented Al Pacino voice> :smile:
 
  • #17
I haven't bothered to get a driving license yet.
Perhaps I should..:devil:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K