What's wrong with this proof of the chain rule

In summary, the conversation discusses the development of the equation (g o f)'(x)=g'(f(x)) and why it is incorrect. The flaw is identified by considering the chain rule for real-valued functions and the Lipschitz property of f at x_0. The conversation concludes by stating the correct equation, which is g'(f(x))f'(x).
  • #1
quasar987
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
4,807
32
Can anyone see where the flaw is in the development below, where I prove that (g o f)'(x)=g'(f(x)) instead of g'(f(x))f'(x), as it should be.

Consider the usual hypothese under which the chain rule for real-valued function applies.

Consider [itex] \epsilon>0[/itex]. Since g is differentiable at f(x_0), there exists [itex] \delta_1(\epsilon)>0[/itex] such that [itex]|y-f(x_0)|<\delta_1(\epsilon) [/itex] implies [itex]|g(y)-g(f(x_0))-g'(f(x_0))(y-f(x_0))|\leq\epsilon|y-f(x_0)|[/itex]

On the other hand, f being differentiable at x_0, enjoys the Lipschitz property there. That is to say, there exists positive constants c and M such that [itex]|x-x_0|<c [/itex] implies [itex] |f(x)-f(x_0)|\leq M|x-x_0|[/itex].

So for [itex]\delta=\min(c,\delta_1(\epsilon/M)/M)[/itex], we have that [itex]|x-x_0|<\delta [/itex] implies [itex]|f(x)-f(x_0)|\leq M|x-x_0|<M\delta\leq M\delta_1(\epsilon/M)/M= \delta_1(\epsilon/M)[/itex]

which in turns implies that

[tex]|g(f(x))-g(f(x_0))-g'(f(x_0))(f(x)-f(x_0))|\leq(\epsilon/M) |f(x)-f(x_0)|\leq (\epsilon/M)M|x-x_0| = \epsilon |x-x_0| [/tex]

And this is equivalent to saying that (g o f)'(x) = g'(f(x))...
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Ok, I see it.
 

1. What is the chain rule and why is it important in mathematics?

The chain rule is a fundamental concept in calculus that allows us to differentiate composite functions. It is important because many real-world problems involve functions that are built from other functions, and the chain rule provides a way to find the derivative of these complex functions.

2. What is the error in the proof of the chain rule?

The error in the proof of the chain rule is that it assumes the derivative of a composite function is equal to the product of the derivatives of its individual functions. However, this is only true in certain cases and does not hold for all composite functions.

3. Why is it important to correct this error in the proof of the chain rule?

Correcting the error in the proof of the chain rule is important because the incorrect proof can lead to incorrect results in calculations and can create confusion for students learning about the chain rule. It is important to have a correct understanding of the chain rule to properly apply it in calculus problems.

4. How can we fix the incorrect proof of the chain rule?

To fix the incorrect proof of the chain rule, we need to use the correct definition of the derivative of a composite function, which involves the use of the chain rule itself. This means that the proof needs to be revised to show the proper application of the chain rule in finding the derivative of a composite function.

5. What are some examples of composite functions that do not follow the incorrect proof of the chain rule?

Some examples of composite functions that do not follow the incorrect proof of the chain rule include exponential functions, logarithmic functions, and trigonometric functions. These functions require the use of the chain rule in their derivative calculations, and the incorrect proof would lead to incorrect results.

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
376
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
4
Views
879
Replies
9
Views
917
Replies
18
Views
2K
  • Calculus
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
24
Views
2K
  • Topology and Analysis
Replies
2
Views
1K
Back
Top