Proving Linearity of a Function Using Chain Rule

The notation ##\partial/\partial x## is often used for the derivative of the function ##x \mapsto g(x,y)##. The notation ##\partial/\partial u## is often used for the derivative of the function ##u \mapsto g(u,v)##. I prefer notations that don't mention the symbols that we intend to insert into the two variable "slots" of g. The notation ##\partial/\partial y## is often used for the derivative of the function ##y \mapsto g(x,y)##. The notation ##\partial/\partial v## is often used for the derivative of the function ##v \mapsto g(u,v)##. I prefer notations that don
  • #1
Contingency
41
0

Homework Statement


[itex]g:ℝ^{ 2 }\rightarrow ℝ[/itex] is everywhere differentiable.
For all (x,y) and for all t: [itex]g\left( tx,ty \right) =tg\left( x,y \right) [/itex].
Prove [itex]g[/itex] is linear (that there exist constants A, B such that for all (x,y): [itex]g\left( x,y \right) =Ax+By[/itex] .
I think my solution is correct, but the solution given after the problem is different. I'd like to know where I'm wrong and why!

Homework Equations


[itex]g\left( tx,ty \right) =tg\left( x,y \right)[/itex]
Chain rule

The Attempt at a Solution


Define [itex]f\left( x,y,t \right) =g\left( tx,ty \right)[/itex].
We then have [itex]f\left( x,y,t \right) =g\left( tx,ty \right) =tg\left( x,y \right)[/itex].
Define [itex]u\left( x,t \right) =tx,\quad v\left( x,y \right) =ty[/itex].
By the chain rule: [itex]\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } \frac { \partial u(x,t) }{ \partial t } +\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } \frac { \partial v(y,t) }{ \partial t } =g(x,y)[/itex]
[itex]\Leftrightarrow\quad \frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } x+\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex]. This holds for any (x,y) and t.
Now choose [itex]t=0\quad \Rightarrow \quad { \frac { \partial f(x,y,t) }{ \partial t } }_{ (x,y,0) }={ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } }_{ (0,0) }x+{ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } }_{ (0,0) }y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex], but [itex]{ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } }_{ (0,0) },{ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } }_{ (0,0) }[/itex] are constants, so we have found proper A,B and therefore the function is linear.

The problem is that in the solution, the differentiation process was different and I have no idea why.. It doesn't make sense. Here's an exact copy of what's written there (u,v are defined the same way):
... By the chain rule: [itex]\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial x } \frac { \partial u(x,t) }{ \partial t } +\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial y } \frac { \partial v(y,t) }{ \partial t } =g(x,y)[/itex]
[itex]\Leftrightarrow \quad \frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial x } x+\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial y } y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex]
[itex]...=\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(xt,yt) }{ \partial x } x+\frac { \partial g(xt,yt) }{ \partial y } y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex]. Then they choose t=0 and arrive at:
[itex]{ g }_{ x }(0,0)x+{ g }_{ y }(0,0)y=g\left( x,y \right) [/itex] where [itex]{ g }_{ x }(0,0),\quad { g }_{ y }(0,0)[/itex] are constants.
I don't understand the differentiation process in the solution, and it's really confusing me.
Please let me know where the mistake is!
Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Contingency said:

Homework Statement


[itex]g:ℝ^{ 2 }\rightarrow ℝ[/itex] is everywhere differentiable.
For all (x,y) and for all t: [itex]g\left( tx,ty \right) =tg\left( x,y \right) [/itex].
Prove [itex]g[/itex] is linear (that there exist constants A, B such that for all (x,y): [itex]g\left( x,y \right) =Ax+By[/itex] .
I think my solution is correct, but the solution given after the problem is different. I'd like to know where I'm wrong and why!

Homework Equations


[itex]g\left( tx,ty \right) =tg\left( x,y \right)[/itex]
Chain rule

The Attempt at a Solution


Define [itex]f\left( x,y,t \right) =g\left( tx,ty \right)[/itex].
We then have [itex]f\left( x,y,t \right) =g\left( tx,ty \right) =tg\left( x,y \right)[/itex].
Define [itex]u\left( x,t \right) =tx,\quad v\left( x,y \right) =ty[/itex].
By the chain rule: [itex]\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } \frac { \partial u(x,t) }{ \partial t } +\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } \frac { \partial v(y,t) }{ \partial t } =g(x,y)[/itex]
[itex]\Leftrightarrow\quad \frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } x+\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex]. This holds for any (x,y) and t.
Now choose [itex]t=0\quad \Rightarrow \quad { \frac { \partial f(x,y,t) }{ \partial t } }_{ (x,y,0) }={ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } }_{ (0,0) }x+{ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } }_{ (0,0) }y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex], but [itex]{ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } }_{ (0,0) },{ \frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } }_{ (0,0) }[/itex] are constants, so we have found proper A,B and therefore the function is linear.

The problem is that in the solution, the differentiation process was different and I have no idea why.. It doesn't make sense. Here's an exact copy of what's written there (u,v are defined the same way):
... By the chain rule: [itex]\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial x } \frac { \partial u(x,t) }{ \partial t } +\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial y } \frac { \partial v(y,t) }{ \partial t } =g(x,y)[/itex]
[itex]\Leftrightarrow \quad \frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial x } x+\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial y } y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex]
[itex]...=\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(xt,yt) }{ \partial x } x+\frac { \partial g(xt,yt) }{ \partial y } y=g\left( x,y \right)[/itex]. Then they choose t=0 and arrive at:
[itex]{ g }_{ x }(0,0)x+{ g }_{ y }(0,0)y=g\left( x,y \right) [/itex] where [itex]{ g }_{ x }(0,0),\quad { g }_{ y }(0,0)[/itex] are constants.
I don't understand the differentiation process in the solution, and it's really confusing me.
Please let me know where the mistake is!
Thanks!

I don't think there's any mistake in your work. You presented the solution much better than they did. They were simply being really sloppy about the notation and variables.
 
  • #3
The only difference between the two solutions you posted is that in the first one, the partial derivatives with respect to the first and second variables are denoted by ##\partial/\partial u## and ##\partial/\partial v## respectively, and in the second one, the same partial derivatives are denoted by ##\partial/\partial x## and ##\partial/\partial y##. I prefer notations that don't mention the symbols that we intend to insert into the two variable "slots" of g, notations like ##D_ig(tx,ty)## or ##g_{,i}(tx,ty)##, where i is of course either 1 or 2.

On the other hand, I don't have a problem with notations like
$$\frac{d}{dt}g(tx,ty)$$ because here the d/dt tells us something. This notation means "the value at t of the derivative of the function ##s\mapsto g(sx,sy)##". The notation
$$\frac{d}{dt}\!\bigg|_0 g(tx,ty)$$ means "the value at 0 of the derivative of the function ##s\mapsto g(sx,sy)##". In both cases, the t's tell us what function to take the derivative of, and in the first case, it also tells us at what point in its domain to evaluate the derivative (which is another function). Since you have already solved the problem, I can show you how I would do this:

For all ##x,y\in\mathbb R##, we have
$$\frac{d}{dt}\!\bigg|_0 g(tx,ty)=D_1g(tx,ty)\frac{d}{dt}\!\bigg|_0 tx +D_2g(tx,ty)\frac{d}{dt}\!\bigg|_0 ty=D_1g(0,0)x +D_2g(0,0)y$$ and
$$\frac{d}{dt}\!\bigg|_0 tg(x,y)=g(x,y).$$
Since ##g(tx,ty)=tg(x,y)## for all ##t,x,y\in\mathbb R##, the two left-hand sides above are equal. So
$$g(x,y)=D_1g(0,0)x +D_2g(0,0)y.$$ Done-diddly-done.

I would also recommend against writing strings of equalities like
$$\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } \frac { \partial u(x,t) }{ \partial t } +\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } \frac { \partial v(y,t) }{ \partial t } =g(x,y)$$ where the third expression is easily seen to be equal to the first, but not so easily seen to be equal to the one in the middle. It's easier to understand what you're doing if you just change the order:
$$g(x,y)=\frac { \partial f }{ \partial t } =\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial u } \frac { \partial u(x,t) }{ \partial t } +\frac { \partial g(u,v) }{ \partial v } \frac { \partial v(y,t) }{ \partial t }.$$
 

1. What is the Chain Rule?

The Chain Rule is a mathematical rule that is used to find the derivative of a composite function. It states that the derivative of a composite function is equal to the derivative of the outer function evaluated at the inner function, multiplied by the derivative of the inner function.

2. How do you prove linearity of a function using the Chain Rule?

To prove linearity of a function using the Chain Rule, you must show that the derivative of the function is equal to a constant value. This can be done by applying the Chain Rule to the function and simplifying the resulting expression until it is in the form of a constant value.

3. Why is it important to prove linearity of a function?

Proving linearity of a function is important because it allows us to determine if the function is a linear function or not. Linear functions have many useful properties that make them easier to work with and understand, and they also have many real-world applications.

4. What are some common mistakes when proving linearity of a function using the Chain Rule?

Some common mistakes when proving linearity of a function using the Chain Rule include not applying the rule correctly, not simplifying the resulting expression, and not considering all parts of the function when applying the rule. It is important to carefully follow the steps and double check your work to avoid these mistakes.

5. Are there any alternative methods for proving linearity of a function?

Yes, there are alternative methods for proving linearity of a function such as using the definition of a linear function, or using other derivative rules such as the Product Rule or Quotient Rule. However, the Chain Rule is usually the most efficient and straightforward method for proving linearity of a function.

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
648
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
159
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
3
Views
278
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
11
Views
982
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
1
Views
584
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
17
Views
980
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
21
Views
1K
  • Calculus and Beyond Homework Help
Replies
12
Views
2K
Back
Top