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

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentialbility and continuity of multivariable vector-valued functions, specifically focusing on the proof of Lemma 2.2.7 from "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by Duistermaat and Kolk. Participants seek clarification on the implications of certain mathematical expressions within the lemma's proof.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter questions how the expression $$\phi_a(x) y = Df(a)y + \frac{ \langle x - a , y \rangle }{ \| x - a \|^2 } \epsilon_a ( x _ a )$$ leads to the conclusion that $$f(x) = f(a) + \phi_a(x) ( x - a )$$.
  • Another participant suggests acting on the expression with $$y = x - a$$ to derive the relationship, noting that the inner product simplifies to the norm squared.
  • Peter expresses that while the proof is valid, he finds the definition of $$\phi_a(x)$$ complicated and not intuitive.
  • A participant references the proof of Proposition 2.2.1 to motivate the definition of $$\phi_a$$ in the context of Hadamard's lemma, suggesting that it is a natural generalization.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

There is no consensus on the intuitiveness of the proof or the definition of $$\phi_a(x)$$, with some participants finding it complicated while others provide justifications for its formulation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the clarity of the proof.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the proof involves specific mathematical definitions and relationships that may not be immediately clear, particularly the role of $$\phi_a(x)$$ and its derivation from earlier propositions.

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