Proving Chain Rule for Partial Derivatives in Calculus 3 Extra Credit Problem

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the equation dx/dy * dy/dz * dz/dx = -1 using partial derivatives and the chain rule. The original poster struggles with the problem due to a lack of complete information about the function involved. Participants suggest that implicit differentiation is necessary, assuming f(x,y,z)=0 defines x, y, and z as functions of each other. The importance of correctly applying the chain rule and the rules of partial derivatives is emphasized. The conversation highlights the need for clarity in problem statements for effective problem-solving in calculus.
ACLerok
Messages
194
Reaction score
0
Hi I'm having trouble with this extra credit problem I've been given. I am supposed to prove:

dx/dy * dy/dz * dz/dx = -1 (partial derivatives)

I think I'm supposed to use the chain rule but not sure. Can anyone help me out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
ACLerok said:
Hi I'm having trouble with this extra credit problem I've been given. I am supposed to prove:

dx/dy * dy/dz * dz/dx = -1 (partial derivatives)

I think I'm supposed to use the chain rule but not sure. Can anyone help me out?
This is not the complete statement of the problem. One has to know what the function is. Please provide the complete problem as given to you.

AM
 
sorry nope.. it's all i was given.
 
It's true in general. matt grime likes to bring it up now and then!

How did trying the chain rule go? (I assume you tried it, since you thought it would be a good idea) How did you set up the problem?
 
i figured if you treat them as quotients you can 'multiply' by dy/dx, dz/dy, and dx/dz to cancel them out but that wouldn't work.. I only said the chain rule cause my TA gave us that hint
 
firstly, it must be assumed f(x,y,z)=0 implicitly defines x as a function of y and z and y as a function of x and z and z as a function of x and y.

then just use the usual rules of implicit differentiation and partial derivatives.
 
TL;DR Summary: I came across this question from a Sri Lankan A-level textbook. Question - An ice cube with a length of 10 cm is immersed in water at 0 °C. An observer observes the ice cube from the water, and it seems to be 7.75 cm long. If the refractive index of water is 4/3, find the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. I could not understand how the apparent height of the ice cube in the water depends on the height of the ice cube immersed in the water. Does anyone have an...
Thread 'Variable mass system : water sprayed into a moving container'
Starting with the mass considerations #m(t)# is mass of water #M_{c}# mass of container and #M(t)# mass of total system $$M(t) = M_{C} + m(t)$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{dM(t)}{dt} = \frac{dm(t)}{dt}$$ $$P_i = Mv + u \, dm$$ $$P_f = (M + dm)(v + dv)$$ $$\Delta P = M \, dv + (v - u) \, dm$$ $$F = \frac{dP}{dt} = M \frac{dv}{dt} + (v - u) \frac{dm}{dt}$$ $$F = u \frac{dm}{dt} = \rho A u^2$$ from conservation of momentum , the cannon recoils with the same force which it applies. $$\quad \frac{dm}{dt}...
Back
Top