Register to reply 
Chain rule proof 
Share this thread: 
#1
Jan2609, 04:04 AM

P: 365

Hello! I got one question for you.
How come that [tex](f \circ g)'(x) = f'(g(x)) g'(x)[/tex] ? Since [tex](f \circ g)'(x)=f(g(x))'[/tex] , [tex]f'(g(x))=f'(g(x)) g'(x)[/tex]. And now we can rewrite the equation like [tex]1=g'(x)[/tex] I don't understand that part. Also I don't understand why the flawed proof of the chain rule is incorrect? [tex]y'=\lim_{dx \rightarrow 0}\frac {dy}{dx} = \lim_{dx \rightarrow 0}\frac {dy} {du} \cdot\frac {du}{dx}=\lim_{du \rightarrow 0}\frac {dy}{du} \cdot \lim_{dx \rightarrow 0}\frac {du}{dx}=f'(u)\cdot u'(x)[/tex] Thanks in advance. Regards. 


#2
Jan2609, 09:21 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 4,300

[tex]y' = \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{dy}{du} \frac{du}{dx}[/tex] is correct but I don't see what the limits are doing there, and actually it is just another way of writing f'(u) u'(x); so there is no proof here, you are just stating the chain rule. Perhaps it is helpful to first consider an example of how the chain rule works. Suppose you have [tex]f(x) = (3x^2 + 6x  9)^2[/tex] and you are asked for f'(x). Then you note that you don't know how to do this derivative (after going through your familiar list of derivatives of elementary functions, product rule and quotient rule) but that it looks a lot like a quadratic function. If you set [itex]u = u(x) = 3x^2 + 6x  9[/itex] then you can simply write [itex]f(x) = f(u(x)) = u(x)^2[/itex], which we usually in a slight shorthand / notational abuse write as [itex]f(u(x)) = u^2[/itex] or [itex]f(x) = u^2[/itex] (which is slightly confusing perhaps, because it is not clear that there is still an x involved). Now this we know how to differentiate: the derivative of [itex]u^2[/itex] is just 2 u. So we would write [tex]\frac{df}{du} = 2u [/tex] to indicate that if u were the variable we were interested in, the derivative of f would be 2u. But we don't want df/du, we want df/dx. The chain rule tells us, that what we wanted to calculate, df/dx, is given by [tex]\frac{df}{dx} = \frac{df}{du} \cdot \frac{du}{dx},[/tex] i.e. we still have to multiply 2u by the derivative of u with x as the variable. Recalling that u was [tex]3x^2 + 6x  9[/tex], we can apply our standard repertoire of derivation tricks and get [tex]\frac{du}{dx} = 6 x + 6[/tex] So, putting it all together, the answer we wanted it [tex]f'(x) = \frac{df}{dx} = \frac{df}{du} \frac{du}{dx} = (2u) \cdot (6x + 6)[/tex] where we now have to write u back in terms of x: [tex]f'(x) = (3x^2 + 6x  9) \cdot (6x + 6)[/tex] which you could simplify to [tex]f'(x) = 18(x^2 + 2x  3)(x + 6).[/tex] Do you understand now the derivations with respect to x and u, and the notation [tex]\frac{df}{du} \text{ and } \frac{df}{dx}?[/tex] Then you have to get used to the "mathematical" shorthand, where we usually write f'(x) if we mean df/du, u'(x) for du/dx; we can make up notations like f'(u) for df/du but I urge you to use the d.../d... notation, because f'(u(x)) is very ambiguous (this is what was confusing you in the first post: does the prime in f'(u(x)) indicate derivation with respect to u or x? That is, do you mean df/dx or df/du here?) 


#3
Jan2609, 12:31 PM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,359




#4
Jan2609, 12:48 PM

P: 365

Chain rule proof
But I didn't understand one thing (the notation one), since f o g (x) = f(g(x)) So (f o g) ' (x) would probably mean f(g(x))'. Am I right? < where we usually write f'(x) if we mean df/du I think that you thought about f'(x)=df/dx Also I think that you missed to multiply by 2, since there is 2u. So it would be [tex]f'(x) = 36(x^2 + 2x  3)(x + 6)[/tex] Thanks again for the help. Regards. 


#5
Jan2609, 01:37 PM

P: 626

Why do you have x + 6, if anything it should be x + 1 if you are taking the 6 out.



#6
Jan2909, 03:38 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,359

The derivative of that function can be written as [itex](f\circ g)'(x)[/itex] or [itex]\frac{d}{dx}f(g(x))[/itex]. Note that the dx in the denominator tells us that the function we're taking the derivative of is [itex]f\circ g[/itex]. If we had been interested in the derivative of f at the point g(x), we would have written it as [itex]f'(g(x))[/itex] or [itex]\frac{d}{dg}f(g(x))[/itex]. 


#7
Jan2909, 11:06 AM

P: 420

The real proof of the chain rule requires a bit more than canceling differentials.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chain_r...the_chain_rule This is the basic proof that is taught in undergrad analysis. 


#8
Feb309, 07:47 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,359

See also #4 and the beginning of #3 in this thread for more about differentials.



#9
Feb309, 08:30 AM

P: 3,243

I don't see what's the problem here:
f(g(x))'=df/dx=(df/dg)(dg/dx) The way you prove it is by looking at [f(g(x+h))f(g(x))/(g(x+h)g(x))][(g(x+h)g(x))/h], where h>0. 


#10
Feb309, 10:29 AM

Emeritus
Sci Advisor
PF Gold
P: 9,359

I'm not sure if you're talking to me or the OP, but the issue in this thread isn't just how to prove it, but to understand why you can't prove it just by canceling differentials in the expression
[tex]\frac{df}{dx}=\frac{df}{dg}\frac{dg}{dx}[/tex] 


#11
Feb809, 10:06 PM

P: 26

You can't just cancel differentials because dg may in fact be 0, in which case the above is nonsensical. Thus the use of differentials is only a heuristic, not a proof.



#12
Aug1011, 12:25 AM

P: 371




Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Chain rule proof  Calculus  15  
What's wrong with this proof of the chain rule  Calculus  1  
Multivariable chainrule proof?  Calculus  6  
I found a proof for the vector chain rule, but it makese no sense to me!  Introductory Physics Homework  2  
The Chain Rule, death to anyone that breaks the rule!  Calculus  55 