Evaluating a derivative by partial differentiation proof

Raghav Gupta
Messages
1,010
Reaction score
76

Homework Statement



Suppose we have an equation,
ex + xy + x2 = 5
Find dy/dx

Homework Equations


Now I know all the linear differentiation stuff like product rule, chain rule etc.
Also I know partial differentiation is differentiating one variable and keeping other one constant.

The Attempt at a Solution


By my method I can evaluate like,
Differentiating both sides
ex + y + xdy/dx + 2x = 0
and then rearrange to get dy/dx.

But my question is
When f(x,y) = 0
How dy/dx = -δx/δy ?
This is really a fast method as we don't have to rearrange terms.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Raghav Gupta said:
When f(x,y) = 0
How dy/dx = -δx/δy ?
How do you explain that?

I know that in some cases you have \frac{dy}{dx}=(\frac{dx}{dy})^{-1}, but it presupposes that y(x) is injective and that x(y) is meaningful and differentiable.
 
Svein said:
How do you explain that?

I know that in some cases you have \frac{dy}{dx}=(\frac{dx}{dy})^{-1}, but it presupposes that y(x) is injective and that x(y) is meaningful and differentiable.
Okay the function is continuous and differentiable everywhere.
 
And sorry, it should be
$$ dy/dx = \frac{-δf(x,y)/δx}{δf(x,y)/δy} $$
 
Raghav Gupta said:
And sorry, it should be
$$ dy/dx = \frac{-δf(x,y)/δx}{δf(x,y)/δy} $$
That's better. And even correct since you start out with f(x, y) = 0. Then 0 = df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy.
 
SteamKing said:
How is this different from implicit differentiation?

http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/CalcI/ImplicitDiff.aspx
Because we do not have to rearrange terms in this partial derivative method and it is fast.
Svein said:
That's better. And even correct since you start out with f(x, y) = 0. Then 0 = df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy.
Not getting this step,
If f(x,y) = 0 then how df= 0.
Note I have not taken classes of partial differentiation.
I Only know this formula and applying because it is fast as compared to implicit differentiation.
Can you give me some insight on deriving the formula?
 
Raghav Gupta said:
Because we do not have to rearrange terms in this partial derivative method and it is fast.

Dudn't seem to be faster, otherwise there wouldn't be this extended thread on getting all the terms correct.

As far as not having to rearrange terms, are you sure you haven't "cherry-picked" your example function from the OP?
 
Raghav Gupta said:
If f(x,y) = 0 then how df= 0.
If f = constant, then df = 0.
 
  • #10
Raghav Gupta said:
And sorry, it should be
$$ dy/dx = \frac{-δf(x,y)/δx}{δf(x,y)/δy} $$
Implicit differentiation is definitely the way to go here, not partial derivatives, as SteamKing suggests. You are way overcomplicating things by invoking partial derivatives
 
  • #11
For this question, it's easy to express y in terms of x and differentiate. You don't even need implicit differentiation.
 
  • #12
But I don't see it complicated if I know the formula.
For example taking my example in OP
ex + xy + x2-5 = 0
Now, δf(x,y)/δx = ex + y + 2x
δf(x,y)/δy = x
So by formula dy/dx = -(ex + y + 2x)/x
---------

f(x, y) = 0. Then 0 = df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy
I'm not understanding the red part. How we are arriving at that?
 
  • #13
Raghav Gupta said:
<Snip>

---------

f(x, y) = 0. Then 0 = df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy
I'm not understanding the red part. How we are arriving at that?

This is the definition of the differential of a function of two variables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_of_a_function

It is not an arbitrary definition; the differential is the best local-linear approximation to the change of
a (differentiable)function, in a precise ## \delta - \epsilon ## sense.
 
  • #14
Raghav Gupta said:
But I don't see it complicated if I know the formula.
For example taking my example in OP
ex + xy + x2-5 = 0
Now, δf(x,y)/δx = ex + y + 2x
δf(x,y)/δy = x
So by formula dy/dx = -(ex + y + 2x)/x
---------

f(x, y) = 0. Then 0 = df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy
I'm not understanding the red part. How we are arriving at that?
I think you are not understanding the formula you posted. We don't "arrive" at what you have in red, above. As already stated, that's the definition of the differential of f, with f being a function of two variables.

From this definition, you can derive the formula you're using.
 
  • #15
Yes I am not understanding the formula.
As I told you I have not taken a class of partial differentials yet.
I mostly deal with dy, dx not δy and δx.
Is ∂x and δx different?
 
  • #16
WWGD said:
This is the definition of the differential of a function of two variables.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differential_of_a_function

It is not an arbitrary definition; the differential is the best local-linear approximation to the change of
a (differentiable)function, in a precise ## \delta - \epsilon ## sense.
Now, I am not understanding the definition formula.
What to do if you are not understanding definition and what to do if you know only the ordinary differentiation?
 
  • #17
If you only know ordinary differentiation, you had better not used this method. It's easy to get things wrong this way.

For this question, it's really easy to express y in terms of x and differentiate.
 
  • #18
momoko said:
If you only know ordinary differentiation, you had better not used this method. It's easy to get things wrong this way.

For this question, it's really easy to express y in terms of x and differentiate.
But I want to learn a new thing.
The attempt I have shown in OP for implicit differentiation.
Edit - moderator you can delete this and subsequent message , don't know why the messages repeated at same time.
 
  • #19
momoko said:
If you only know ordinary differentiation, you had better not used this method. It's easy to get things wrong this way.

For this question, it's really easy to express y in terms of x and differentiate.
But I want to learn a new thing.
The attempt I have shown in OP for implicit differentiation.
 
Back
Top