Differentialbility & Continuity of Multivariable Vector-Valued Functions .... D&K Lemma 2.2.7 ....

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on the proof of Lemma 2.2.7 from "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk, specifically regarding the relationship between the expression $$\phi_a(x) y = Df(a)y + \frac{ \langle x - a , y \rangle }{ \| x - a \|^2 } \epsilon_a ( x _ a )$$ and the equation $$f(x) = f(a) + \phi_a(x) ( x - a )$$. Participants clarify that the definition of $$\phi_a(x)$$ is a natural generalization from Proposition 2.2.1, which aids in understanding the continuity and differentiability of multivariable vector-valued functions. The discussion emphasizes the importance of the inner product and the norm in the context of the proof.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multivariable calculus concepts, particularly differentiability.
  • Familiarity with vector-valued functions and their properties.
  • Knowledge of inner products and norms in $\mathbb{R}^n$.
  • Basic understanding of the Hadamard lemma and its applications in analysis.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the proof of Proposition 2.2.1 in "Multidimensional Real Analysis I" to understand the derivation of $$\phi_a(x)$$.
  • Explore the implications of the Hadamard lemma in the context of differentiable mappings.
  • Review the properties of linear mappings in $\mathbb{R}^n$ and $\mathbb{R}^p$ as discussed in Duistermaat and Kolk's text.
  • Investigate the relationship between inner products and norms in vector spaces to solidify understanding of the proof's mechanics.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students of advanced calculus, and researchers focusing on multivariable analysis, particularly those interested in differentiability and continuity of vector-valued functions.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
Differentialbility & Continuity of Multivariable Vector-Valued Functions ... D&K Lemma 2.2.7 ...

I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 2: Differentiation ... ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Lemma 2.2.7 (Hadamard...) ... ...

Duistermaat and Kolk's Lemma 2.2.7 and its proof read as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7829
View attachment 7830In the above proof we read the following:

" ... ... Or, in other words since $$(x - a)^t y = \langle x - a , y \rangle \in \mathbb{R}$$ for $$y \in \mathbb{R}^n$$,$$\phi_a(x) y = Df(a)y + \frac{ \langle x - a , y \rangle }{ \| x - a \|^2 } \epsilon_a ( x _ a ) \in \mathbb{R}^p \ \ \ \ \ (x \in U \setminus \{ a \} , \ y \in \mathbb{R}^n )$$.

Now indeed we have $$f(x) = f(a) + \phi_a(x) ( x - a )$$. ... ... "
My question is as follows:How/why does $$\phi_a(x) y = Df(a)y + \frac{ \langle x - a , y \rangle }{ \| x - a \|^2 } \epsilon_a ( x _ a ) \in \mathbb{R}^p$$

... imply that ...

$$f(x) = f(a) + \phi_a(x) ( x - a )$$ ... ... ... ?
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter

==========================================================================================

NOTE:

The start of D&K's section on differentiable mappings may help readers of the above post understand the context and notation of the post ... so I am providing the same as follows:View attachment 7831
View attachment 7832

The start of D&K's section on linear mappings may also help readers of the above post understand the context and notation of the post ... so I am providing the same as follows:
View attachment 7833
View attachment 7834
View attachment 7835Hope the above helps readers understand the context and notation of the post ...

Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Re: Differentialbility & Continuity of Multivariable Vector-Valued Functions ... D&K Lemma 2.2.7 ...

Peter said:
My question is as follows:How/why does $$\phi_a(x) y = Df(a)y + \frac{ \langle x - a , y \rangle }{ \| x - a \|^2 } \epsilon_a ( x _ a ) \in \mathbb{R}^p$$

... imply that ...

$$f(x) = f(a) + \phi_a(x) ( x - a )$$ ... ... ... ?
Clearly this is true for $x = a$, so we may assume $x \neq a$ and use the line preceding this statement in the proof.

Note that in that statement, $\phi_a(x)$ is in $L(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R}^p)$. Act with this on $y = x - a \in \mathbb{R}^n$ according to the right-hand side of the formula to obtain
\[
\phi_a(x)(x - a) = Df(a)(x - a) + \frac{\langle x - a, x - a\rangle}{\|x - a\|^2}\epsilon_a(x - a),
\]
and use that $\langle x - a, x - a\rangle = (x - a)^t(x - a) = \|x - a\|^2$. (The inner product of a vector with itself is the vector's norm squared.)
 
Re: Differentialbility & Continuity of Multivariable Vector-Valued Functions ... D&K Lemma 2.2.7 ...

Krylov said:
Clearly this is true for $x = a$, so we may assume $x \neq a$ and use the line preceding this statement in the proof.

Note that in that statement, $\phi_a(x)$ is in $L(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R}^p)$. Act with this on $y = x - a \in \mathbb{R}^n$ according to the right-hand side of the formula to obtain
\[
\phi_a(x)(x - a) = Df(a)(x - a) + \frac{\langle x - a, x - a\rangle}{\|x - a\|^2}\epsilon_a(x - a),
\]
and use that $\langle x - a, x - a\rangle = (x - a)^t(x - a) = \|x - a\|^2$. (The inner product of a vector with itself is the vector's norm squared.)

Thanks Krylov,

... followed your advice and obtained the result ...

Thanks again ...

Peter
 
Re: Differentialbility & Continuity of Multivariable Vector-Valued Functions ... D&K Lemma 2.2.7 ...

Krylov said:
Clearly this is true for $x = a$, so we may assume $x \neq a$ and use the line preceding this statement in the proof.

Note that in that statement, $\phi_a(x)$ is in $L(\mathbb{R}^n,\mathbb{R}^p)$. Act with this on $y = x - a \in \mathbb{R}^n$ according to the right-hand side of the formula to obtain
\[
\phi_a(x)(x - a) = Df(a)(x - a) + \frac{\langle x - a, x - a\rangle}{\|x - a\|^2}\epsilon_a(x - a),
\]
and use that $\langle x - a, x - a\rangle = (x - a)^t(x - a) = \|x - a\|^2$. (The inner product of a vector with itself is the vector's norm squared.)
Thanks again Krylov ...

BUT ... just a comment on D&K's proof ...

I have to say that D&K's proof of Hadamard's Lemma though valid, is not very intuitive, starting as it does with a fairly complicated definition of \phi_a(x) ... ...

Do you have any comments ... ?Peter
 
Re: Differentialbility & Continuity of Multivariable Vector-Valued Functions ... D&K Lemma 2.2.7 ...

Peter said:
Thanks again Krylov ...

BUT ... just a comment on D&K's proof ...

I have to say that D&K's proof of Hadamard's Lemma though valid, is not very intuitive, starting as it does with a fairly complicated definition of \phi_a(x) ... ...

Do you have any comments ... ?Peter

Hi Peter,

In the proof of "Hadamard" they refer to (2.9) which occurs in the proof of Prop. 2.2.1. I think that is indeed how the definition of $\phi_a$ in "Hadamard" gets motivated: Go back to Prop. 2.2.1 (which applies to the case $n = p = 1$) and notice how there $\phi_a$ is really obtained by "solving"
\[
f(x) = f(a) + \phi_a(x)(x - a) \qquad (*)
\]
for $\phi_a(x)$ to obtain the difference quotient (when $x \neq a$) or the derivative $f'(a)$ itself (when $x = a$). Then, returning to the general case of "Hadamard", the choice for $\phi_a$ in the proof is a quite natural generalization of the choice made in the proof of Prop. 2.2.1. (And, indeed, we know now that it does satisfy (*) because of the answer in post #2 to your original question in post #1.)

P.S. Sorry it took a few days.
 
Re: Differentialbility & Continuity of Multivariable Vector-Valued Functions ... D&K Lemma 2.2.7 ...

Krylov said:
Hi Peter,

In the proof of "Hadamard" they refer to (2.9) which occurs in the proof of Prop. 2.2.1. I think that is indeed how the definition of $\phi_a$ in "Hadamard" gets motivated: Go back to Prop. 2.2.1 (which applies to the case $n = p = 1$) and notice how there $\phi_a$ is really obtained by "solving"
\[
f(x) = f(a) + \phi_a(x)(x - a) \qquad (*)
\]
for $\phi_a(x)$ to obtain the difference quotient (when $x \neq a$) or the derivative $f'(a)$ itself (when $x = a$). Then, returning to the general case of "Hadamard", the choice for $\phi_a$ in the proof is a quite natural generalization of the choice made in the proof of Prop. 2.2.1. (And, indeed, we know now that it does satisfy (*) because of the answer in post #2 to your original question in post #1.)

P.S. Sorry it took a few days.
Thanks for the help, Krylov ... much appreciated!

... just now reflecting on what you have written ...

Peter
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K