1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Chain Rule

  1. May 1, 2007 #1
    All the proofs I have found for the Chain Rule involve limits and the fundamental theorem of Algebra...

    So I came up with a PROOF, not a derivation. But my teacher claims that my proof is invalid. Is it? If so, why???


    therefore: dy/du = f ' (u)
    therefore: dy = (f ' (u)) * du -->

    therefore: du/dx = z ' (x)
    therefore: 1/dx = (z ' (x))/du -->

    therefore dy/dx = dy*(1/dx)
    therefore: dy/dx = ((f ' (u))*du)*(z ' (x))/du
    which simplifies to:
    dy/dx=(f ' (u))*(z ' (x))=(f ' (z(x)))*(z ' (x)) ==>
    or alternatively substituting...
    dy/dx=dy/du*du/dx ==>
  2. jcsd
  3. May 1, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Uhh... is this rigorous? You're just manipulating notation. While extremely convenient, the use in a true proof is questionable.

    Of course a proof of the chain rule will involve limits.... because the definition of a derivative is based on a limit, and the chain rule is a proof about a derivative. You can often expect proofs to rely on definitions
  4. May 1, 2007 #3
    Your proof is valid. Though there is a simpler proof.

    du / dx = z'(x)

    df / du = f'(u)

    If we multiply both, we get df/dx, which is what we are looking for. Hence df / du = f'(u) * z'(x)
  5. May 1, 2007 #4
    Well, (to "Office Shredder"), the reason, I used arrows, was because my teacher could not follow my proof. Anyway, thanks. I just wanted to check whether my proof is valid. I insist that it is not a derivation. I see it like induction - this concept involves proving the statement/equation by proving that it will work for all the numbers defined within the set in which it claims that it will work... Although this is a simplistic thought, it underlies; the reason why I think my proof is valid. If I am "manipulating notation", then can you tell me why this is invalid in a 'Proof'???
  6. May 1, 2007 #5
    Manipulation of infinitesimals as such is valid because the meaning of the limit they represent is not lost.

    Edit: e.g. With the expression 1/dx = = (z ' (x))/du, the OP substituted such as dy/dx = ((f ' (u))*du)*(z ' (x))/du. This expression, interpreted as a limit, is still valid. Since du is a function of dx such as du = du(dx), if we let dx go to a very small value, so does du and the expression (z ' (x))/du becomes closer and closer to 1/dx. Since it gets closer and closer to 1/dx, ((f ' (u))*du)*(z ' (x))/du gets closer and closer to (f ' (u))*du / dx. Hence, if (f ' (u))*du / dx has a limit, the other expression will have the same limit because the two expressions become increasingly close as dx goes to 0.
    Last edited: May 2, 2007
  7. May 1, 2007 #6
    How exactly is this a proof? du/dx and df/du are not fractions.
  8. May 2, 2007 #7
    As said before, infinitesimals can be treated like numbers because the the ending result always represents the limit we are looking for once we "convert" this ending result to a limit. This said, the simpler proof can be understood in another way: as in limits, dy, df and dx are not 0. The expressions dy/dx and df/dx are thus fractions. Their factor, df/dx, is also a fraction. However, it is more convenient to look at df/dx as a product. The definition of the derivative is dy/dx = f'(x) + k where k is increasingly small for dx going to 0. Hence we would have

    df/dx = (z'(x) + k )*(f'(u) + l ) = z'(x)*f'(u) + lk + l(...) + k(...)

    You can see that as dx becomes closer to 0, the values l and k become very small, and so do the terms lk + l(...) + k(...). If we introduce a variable m, such as m = lk + l(...) + k(...), we obtain

    df/dx = z'(x)*f'(u) + m

    Since m can be made as small as we wish, this new expression fits the definition of the derivative and hence z'(x)*f'(u) is the derivative.
    Last edited: May 2, 2007
  9. May 2, 2007 #8
    Thanks. Your Proof to my proof is exactly what I asked for...
  10. May 2, 2007 #9


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    werg, your definition of dy/dx doesn't mean anything as far as I can tell; can you clarify it?
  11. May 2, 2007 #10


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    my stomach hurts. this is horse****
  12. May 2, 2007 #11
    I have no definition of dy/dx: I just assigned dy/dx to a fraction for the sake of being practical. dy/dx in my explanation really means f(x+h) - f(x)/h. Mathwonk, please elaborate...
  13. May 2, 2007 #12
    It doesn't seem like such a great idea, at least for rigorous proofs, to arbitrarily assign new definitions to things that are already well defined.

    But that is not what dy/dx is, it is the limit of this ratio.
  14. May 2, 2007 #13


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Then you hit the wall that

    [tex]lim_{h->0}\frac{f(x+h)-f(x)}{h}[/tex] =/= [tex]\frac{lim_{h->0}f(x+h)-f(x)}{lim_{h->0}h}[/tex]
  15. May 2, 2007 #14
    While I agree with the sentiment... not your most constructive post ever.

    (Nor mine :rolleyes: )
  16. May 2, 2007 #15

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Werg22, I am all for your treatment of the differentials in such a manner, but as a nice trick that use in calculations, not as a *proof*. If you wish to justify your treatment rigorously, please prove that in every case the differentials can be treated as such, retaining its original definition.
  17. May 2, 2007 #16
    Okay, the arguments seem to have swerved. But nobody has explained whether my PROOF (NOT derivation) is valid. If not, nobody has yet stated why...
  18. May 2, 2007 #17

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    In The strictest sense, it is not valid as you have treated notation which just appears to look like a fraction, as a fraction. We have discussed the pros and cons and if you read our response you would have realised we have already stated why it is not valid.
  19. May 2, 2007 #18
    I don't think you got the whole principle. Forget dy/dx. Pretend we are talking about f(u+h) - f(u) / i

    where h is a small change change in u that is itself a function of the change in x, which we shall denote i.

    If we multiply the expression by the change h top and bottom, we get the fraction

    f(u+h) - f(u) / h * h/i

    Note that this a fraction and no limit has been evaluated. Now as i - > 0, so does h. But however small i and h, the expression simplifies to f(u+h) - f(u)/i.
    Hence, the limit as i goes to 0 of THAT expression, is the same as the limit of f(u+h) - f(u)/i as i goes to 0. We have (definition of a limit):

    f(u+h) - f(u) / h = f'(u) + k, h/i = z'(x) + l

    where k and l are increasingly small for smaller and smaller i and h. This gives us the following expression for f(u+h) - f(u) / i:

    f(u+h) - f(u) / i = f(u+h) - f(u) / h * h/i = f'(u)*z'(x) + kl + k(...) + l(...)

    Here again, I have only dealt with fractions. Now look at what happens: if we let i go to 0, so does h. Hence, for a very small i, k and l will be very small. Now you can see that the expression kl + k(...) + l(...) approaches 0 and is, from a certain point, constantly approaching 0 without being bounded to a value close to it. Hence we can write

    f(u+h) - f(u) / i = f'(u)*z'(x) + m(i)

    where m(i) is a function of i and is equal to kl + k(...) + l(...). Now since we have deduced that m(i) is increasingly small (absolute value) from a certain point and approaches 0, this new expression fits exactly what we mean by a limit. Hence f'(u)*z'(x) is defined as the limit. This is exactly what I did with my explanation that made dy/dx a real fraction: it was for the sake of being pragmatic. In the explanation, dy/dx were no longer infinitesimals, but just values such as f(u+h) - f(u), i and u. Now that I didn't use any of this, I hope it's clearer. Anyway, the real use of dy/dx spares us allot of time as it spares us to consider everything with limits. And for being rigorous, the explanation itself is plenty rigorous, just not the presentation - a ridiculous expectation on a forum.
    Last edited: May 2, 2007
  20. May 2, 2007 #19
    No wall at all, h is left to be the same on top and bottom so it's the same expression.
  21. May 2, 2007 #20


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Except the RHS of that inequality doesn't even exist.

    So you've proven no function has a derivative. Congratulations

    Notice how, when being rigorous, one can only prove lim(a/b) = lim(a)/lim(b) only if lim(a), lim(b) both exist and lim(b) =/= 0 (assuming lim(a/b) exists here)
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Chain Rule