Confusion on chain rule substitution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the chain rule in calculus, specifically in the context of integrating expressions related to work done in physics. Participants explore the transformation of integrals involving velocity as a function of time and position, addressing potential confusion regarding variable dependencies and the implications of using the chain rule for substitution.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the application of the chain rule in transforming the integral for work done, questioning the validity of substituting variables.
  • Another participant attempts to clarify the transformation steps, emphasizing the need to correctly handle the dependencies of variables when applying the chain rule.
  • A different participant points out that if velocity is not a well-defined function of position, it complicates the integration process, suggesting that velocity could be multi-valued if the particle changes direction.
  • Further clarification is provided regarding the notation and the relationship between time and position, with emphasis on the correct application of the chain rule.
  • Participants discuss the implications of treating time as a function of position and the potential confusion that arises from mixing variable roles.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the validity of certain substitutions and the implications of variable dependencies. There are multiple competing views regarding the treatment of velocity as a function of position and the correct application of the chain rule.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the potential misunderstanding of variable dependencies, the assumption that velocity is a well-defined function of position, and the implications of using time as a function of position in the integration process.

skyfire101
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
I'm confident in my math ability, but how is it that by using the chain
rule...
[tex] W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dt} dx[/tex]
can be turned into
[tex] W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dx} \frac{dx}{dt} dx = \int^{v_2}_{v_1}mv dv[/tex]
?
I understand the concept of using chain rule to make velocity depend on position which is dependent on time
[tex]v(t)=v(x(t))[/tex]
[tex]v'(t)=v'(x(t))x'(t)[/tex]
where
[tex]\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{dv}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt}[/tex]

however even with the above in mind integration by substitution is defined as:
[tex]\int^{b}_{a} f(g(t))g'(t)dt = \int^{g(b)}_{g(a)} f(x)dx[/tex]
which means the integral "dx" should be a "dt" instead since time is the base independent variable.
[tex]\int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x(t))x'(t) dt[/tex]
and after substitution should be in the form
[tex]\int^{x(x_2)}_{x(x_1)} mv'(x)dx[/tex]
but obviously that makes no sense either since the limits of integration are in terms of "x" and x(t) needs to have inputs of time. where did i go wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi skyfire101! :smile:

You're mixing up your x and t a bit.

I'll try to make it a little clearer by putting it this way:
[tex]\begin{array}{lcl}<br /> \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(t(x)) dx<br /> &=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx \\<br /> &=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) v(t(x)) dx \\<br /> &=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v(t(x)) v'(x) dx \\<br /> &=& \int^{v(x_2)}_{v(x_1)} m v dv<br /> \end{array}[/tex]
 
He's mixing up his v's.

If you're going to convert to notating things as functions, you either have be careful about the functions. If all variables are representing functions of time, then you have to introduce an entirely new function that expresses v as a function of x. If you call that function f, you have
v(t) = f(x(t))​
 
thank you so much for the responses, however I am a little confused...
I like Serena said:
[tex]\begin{array}{lcl}<br /> \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(t(x)) dx<br /> &=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx \\<br /> &=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) v(t(x)) dx \\<br /> &=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v(t(x)) v'(x) dx \\<br /> &=& \int^{v(x_2)}_{v(x_1)} m v dv<br /> \end{array}[/tex]
specifically here;
[tex] \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx[/tex]
how did you get the
[tex] x'(t(x))[/tex]
it looks like you have x and t depending on each other, is that correct? please explain :)
 
skyfire101 said:
I'm confident in my math ability, but how is it that by using the chain rule...
[tex] W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dt} dx[/tex]
can be turned into
[tex] W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dx} \frac{dx}{dt} dx = \int^{v_2}_{v_1}mv dv[/tex]
...
This looks like a piece of the proof of the Work-Energy Theorem as it is often presented in Introductory Physics textbooks.

My objection to this proof is that velocity may or may not be a "well defined" function of x. (If the particle reverses direction on its way from x1 to x2, then the velocity, v, is a so called "multi-valued function" of x.)

I would rather use a different intermediate step.

[itex]\displaystyle W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dt} dx[/itex]
[itex]\displaystyle =\int^{t_2}_{t_1} m \frac{dv}{dt}\frac{dx}{dt} dt\ ,\text{ where }x_1=x(t_1) \text{ and }x_2=x(t_2)\,.[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle =\int^{t_2}_{t_1} mv \frac{dv}{dt} dt[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle =\int^{v_2}_{v_1} mv dv\ ,\text{ where }v_1=v(t_1) \text{ and }v_2=v(t_2)\,.[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle =(1/2)m{v_2}^2-(1/2)m{v_1}^2[/itex]
 
skyfire101 said:
thank you so much for the responses, however I am a little confused...

specifically here;
[tex] \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx[/tex]
how did you get the
[tex] x'(t(x))[/tex]
it looks like you have x and t depending on each other, is that correct? please explain :)

It's how you applied the chain rule.

The chain rule is:
(f o g)'(t) = f'(g(t)) g'(t)​

You applied this to v as a function of x and x as a function of t:
(v o x)'(t) = v'(x(t)) x'(t)​

But since you are integrating with respect to x, you are implicitly using t as a function of x (which you actually shouldn't assume in general as SammyS already pointed out).
Note that t(x) = x-1(x) if we're using the function x(t).
Sorry about the mix-up caused by using x and t as variables, as well as functions, which is confusing as Hurkyl already pointed out.
I've bolded the functions to distinguish them. :)

So we have:
(v o x)'(t(x)) = v'(x(t(x))) x'(t(x))​
Since
x(t(x)) = x​
this becomes:
(v o x)'(t(x)) = v'(x) x'(t(x))​
 
Last edited:
thanx so much it all makes sense now! :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
5K