Chain rule notation - can Leibniz form be made explicit?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the chain rule in calculus, specifically the use of Leibniz notation and whether it can be made more explicit. Participants explore different forms of the chain rule, comparing Leibniz notation with traditional function notation and discussing preferences for clarity and usability.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a version of the chain rule using Leibniz notation and questions its clarity and correctness.
  • Another participant confirms the correctness of the proposed Leibniz form and expresses a preference for it due to its algebraic manipulation resembling fractions.
  • A different participant notes that the notations are interchangeable and encourages familiarity with both forms.
  • One participant finds the proposed Leibniz expression a bit confusing and prefers the non-Leibniz notation, suggesting that it aligns more closely with a general form of the chain rule.
  • Another participant comments on the preference of Leibniz notation for manipulating algebraically-dependent variables rather than functions.
  • A later reply acknowledges the various suggestions and expresses interest in the different ways to express the chain rule.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing preferences for Leibniz notation versus traditional function notation, indicating that there is no consensus on which form is superior. Some find Leibniz notation clearer, while others prefer the non-Leibniz approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential confusion in the proposed Leibniz form and the varying interpretations of notation, suggesting that clarity may depend on the context in which it is used.

seand
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi there, I'm a new user to the forums (and Calculus) and I 'm hoping you can give me your opinion on my chain rule form below. When learning the chain rule, I was taught two forms. This form:
\frac{d}{dx}f(g(x))=f'(g(x))g'(x)
As well as the Leibniz form
\frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{dy}{du}\frac{du}{dx} where y=f(u) and u=g(x)

I prefer the Leibniz notation, except that it requires you to understand that y=f(u) and u=g(x), to really understand the d/dx expression.

So my question is if there is a way to make Liebniz more explicit? ie. Does the following make sense? Is it correct?
\frac{d}{dx}f(g(x)) = \frac{df(g(x))}{dg(x)}\frac{dg(x)}{dx}
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi seand! Welcome to PF! :smile:
seand said:
Does the following make sense? Is it correct?
\frac{d}{dx}f(g(x)) = \frac{df(g(x))}{dg(x)}\frac{dg(x)}{dx}

Yes, that's fine.

And I agree, the Leibniz form is easier to use, simply because you can "cancel" in it, just like ordinary fractions. :wink:
 
dg/dx = g'(x). The notations are interchangable. Just get used to both of them.
 
seand said:
\frac{d}{dx}f(g(x)) = \frac{df(g(x))}{dg(x)}\frac{dg(x)}{dx}
It's possible, but a bit confusing to me. I prefer the non-Leibniz notation anyway. It looks more like (in fact, is) the more general chain rule \mbox{D}_x\left(g \circ f\right) = \mbox{D}_{f\left(x\right)}\left(g\right) \circ \mbox{D}_x\left(f\right).

I find this clearer
\frac{d}{dx}f(g(x)) = \left.\frac{df(y)}{dy}\right|_{y=g(x)}\frac{dg(x)}{dx}
but the nice thing about the expression \frac{dy}{dx}=\frac{dy}{du}\frac{du}{dx} is that it behaves like fractions, which you lose this way.
 
Leibniz notation really prefers that, notationally, you are manipulating algebraically-dependent variables rather than functions.
 
Thank you Hurkyl, Landau, mathman and Tiny Tim for the replies and especially the suggestions. It's interesting to know that I could express the chain rule the way I did, but that there are other, more normal ways to do it.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K