Equality of mixed partial derivatives of order >2

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the equality of mixed partial derivatives of order greater than 2 for functions classified as Ck. It is established that while mixed second-order partial derivatives are equal for C2 functions, this equality does not extend to all combinations of higher-order mixed partial derivatives. The notation used in Folland's Advanced Calculus regarding the generic partial derivative of order |\alpha| is clarified, emphasizing that the order of differentiation does not imply the same variable derivatives. The distinction between different mixed partial derivatives is crucial for accurate mathematical interpretation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Ck functions and their properties
  • Familiarity with mixed partial derivatives
  • Knowledge of Taylor's theorem and its applications
  • Proficiency in using multi-index notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Ck functions in detail
  • Learn about the implications of mixed partial derivatives in higher dimensions
  • Explore Taylor's theorem and its applications in advanced calculus
  • Investigate the use of multi-index notation in partial differentiation
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, calculus students, and educators seeking a deeper understanding of mixed partial derivatives and their implications in higher-order calculus.

NickMusicMan
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
I know that for any C2 function, the mixed second-order partials are equal, and I see that this should extend inductively to a statement about the kth partials of a Ck function, but I am having trouble figuring out exactly how this works.

For example, take f:ℝ2 → ℝ .

fxxy=fxyy is not true, right?


Folland's Advanced Calculus says that in Taylor's theorem we can use the notation \partial\alphaf to refer to "the generic partial derivative of order |\alpha|, since the order of differentiation doesn't matter". (\alpha is a multi-index)

But this doesn't make sense to me, considering that there are multiple possibilities for the order>2 partials, even when restricting it to mixed partials. Is this an oversight in Folland's wording, or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for your replies :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
NickMusicMan said:
I know that for any C2 function, the mixed second-order partials are equal, and I see that this should extend inductively to a statement about the kth partials of a Ck function, but I am having trouble figuring out exactly how this works.

For example, take f:ℝ2 → ℝ .

fxxy=fxyy is not true, right?
Yes, that's right- but not really what you are asking. After all, fxx is not the samer as fyy. What fxy= fyx says is that, as long as the derivatives are continuous, the order of the derivatives does not matter.

Folland's Advanced Calculus says that in Taylor's theorem we can use the notation \partial\alphaf to refer to "the generic partial derivative of order |\alpha|, since the order of differentiation doesn't matter". (\alpha is a multi-index)

But this doesn't make sense to me, considering that there are multiple possibilities for the order>2 partials, even when restricting it to mixed partials. Is this an oversight in Folland's wording, or am I missing something?

Thanks in advance for your replies :)
Apparently you are missing the fact that "order" does not mean changing the number of derivatives with respect to the different variables. "yxx" and "xyx" are different orders of the same thing, "yxx" and "xyy" are NOT.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
7K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K