MHB Differentials in R^n .... Another Remark by Browder, Section 8.2 .... ....

Click For Summary
In Section 8.2 of Andrew Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction," the discussion centers on the implications of setting \( h = tk \) as \( t \to 0 \) to analyze differentiable maps. This substitution allows the variable vector \( h \) to converge to zero while keeping \( k \) fixed and nonzero, which is essential for applying the limit definition of differentiability. As \( t \) approaches zero, the expression \( \frac{1}{|tk|}(L(tk) - M(tk)) \) converges to zero, leading to the conclusion that \( Lk = Mk \). The key takeaway is the distinction between fixed and variable vectors, which is crucial for understanding the behavior of the functions involved. This analysis reinforces the concept of differentiability in the context of vector spaces.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 8: Differentiable Maps and am specifically focused on Section 8.2 Differentials ... ...

I need some further help in fully understanding some remarks by Browder made after Definition 8.9 ...

Definition 8.9 and the following remark read as follows:

View attachment 9408

In the above Remark by Browder we read the following:

"for any fixed $$k \neq 0$$ and $$t \gt 0$$, we have $$\frac{1}{ |tk| }( L(tk) - M(tk) ) = \frac{1}{|k|},(Lk - Mk )$$ ... ... ... "
My questions are as follows:Question 1

Browder puts $$h = tk$$ and then let's $$t \to 0$$ ... why is Browder doing this ... what is the logic behind this ... what do we gain by putting $$h = tk$$ ... both $$h$$ and $$k \in \mathbb{R}^n $$ and also isn't $$h$$ just as arbitrary as $$k$$ ... ?
Question 2

How exactly (and in detail) does letting $$t \to 0$$ allow us to conclude that $$Lk = Mk$$ ...
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Browder - Definition 8.9  ... Differentials ....png
    Browder - Definition 8.9 ... Differentials ....png
    21.4 KB · Views: 155
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
In the above Remark by Browder we read the following:

"for any fixed $$k \neq 0$$ and $$t \gt 0$$, we have $$\frac{1}{ |tk| }( L(tk) - M(tk) ) = \frac{1}{|k|},(Lk - Mk )$$ ... ... ... "
My questions are as follows:Question 1

Browder puts $$h = tk$$ and then let's $$t \to 0$$ ... why is Browder doing this ... what is the logic behind this ... what do we gain by putting $$h = tk$$ ... both $$h$$ and $$k \in \mathbb{R}^n $$ and also isn't $$h$$ just as arbitrary as $$k$$ ... ?
Question 2

How exactly (and in detail) does letting $$t \to 0$$ allow us to conclude that $$Lk = Mk$$ ...
You need to make a clear distinction between fixed and variable vectors. In the equation $$\lim_{h\to0}\frac1{|h|}(Lh - Mh) = 0$$, $h$ has to be a variable vector that converges to $0$. But $k$ is a fixed (nonzero) vector. if $h=tk$ then $h$ varies as $t$ varies. And as $t$ goes to $0$, $h$ also goes to $0$. So you can conclude that $$\lim_{t\to0}\frac1{|tk|}(L(tk) - M(tk)) = 0$$. But $$\frac1{|tk|}(L(tk) - M(tk)) = \frac1{|k|}(Lk-Mk)$$, which is constant. It follows that$$ \frac1{|k|}(Lk-Mk) = 0$$, and since $|k|$ is nonzero the conclusion is that $Lk-Mk = 0$.
 
Opalg said:
You need to make a clear distinction between fixed and variable vectors. In the equation $$\lim_{h\to0}\frac1{|h|}(Lh - Mh) = 0$$, $h$ has to be a variable vector that converges to $0$. But $k$ is a fixed (nonzero) vector. if $h=tk$ then $h$ varies as $t$ varies. And as $t$ goes to $0$, $h$ also goes to $0$. So you can conclude that $$\lim_{t\to0}\frac1{|tk|}(L(tk) - M(tk)) = 0$$. But $$\frac1{|tk|}(L(tk) - M(tk)) = \frac1{|k|}(Lk-Mk)$$, which is constant. It follows that$$ \frac1{|k|}(Lk-Mk) = 0$$, and since $|k|$ is nonzero the conclusion is that $Lk-Mk = 0$.
Thanks Opalg ...

Appreciate your help ...

Peter
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K