Functional relation and implicit functions

Click For Summary
Implicit differentiation is essential for finding the slope of tangent lines to curves defined by equations of the form F(x, y, z, ...) = 0, especially when explicit solutions like y = g(x) are not feasible. It allows for the computation of partial derivatives using the chain rule, even when the relationship between variables is complex. The expression dg/dxj = -djF/d(n+1)F illustrates how changes in one variable affect another in implicit contexts. Finding a point on the curve that satisfies F(x, y) = 0 is crucial, as it enables the determination of the tangent line's slope without needing an explicit function. This method is particularly useful when one variable can be expressed as a differentiable function of another, despite the challenges in identifying points on the implicit curve.
trap101
Messages
339
Reaction score
0
This is more a conceptual question. So i am doing some self review of multi variate calculus and i am looking at functinal relations of the form F(x, y, z,...) = 0

In the book they talk about implicit differentiation. Now i fully understand how to do the mechanics of it, but i was trying to understand why we need implicit differentiation? I get the fact that we may not be able to solve for all our functions in an explicit form say y = g(x, z,w,...)

But when they state something along the lines of we can use the chain rule to compute the partials of g in terms of F where

F(x, y, z,...g(x, y, z))

And the partials would .be of the form dg/dxj = -djF/d(n+1)F

What is the objective of this expression?

Convuluted i know, if clarification is needed please ask. Thanks for help
 
trap101 said:
This is more a conceptual question. So i am doing some self review of multi variate calculus and i am looking at functinal relations of the form F(x, y, z,...) = 0

In the book they talk about implicit differentiation. Now i fully understand how to do the mechanics of it, but i was trying to understand why we need implicit differentiation? I get the fact that we may not be able to solve for all our functions in an explicit form say y = g(x, z,w,...)

But when they state something along the lines of we can use the chain rule to compute the partials of g in terms of F where

F(x, y, z,...g(x, y, z))

And the partials would .be of the form dg/dxj = -djF/d(n+1)F
This is very difficult to follow. You have F(x, y, z, ..., g(x, y, z)). That's just an expression. Typically you have level curves where F(x, y, z, ..., g(x, y, z)) = C for some constant C.

In this equation, dg/dxj = -djF/d(n+1)F, you have switched from variables x, y, z, ... to indexed variables x1, x2, and so on.
I don't know what you're trying to convey with this expression -- -djF/d(n+1)F.

Do you have a specific example in mind?

trap101 said:
What is the objective of this expression?

Convuluted i know, if clarification is needed please ask. Thanks for help
 
a function is a curve that satisfies the vertical line test, and when you have a formula for such a function in terms of y = f(x) you know how to find the tangent line at any point.

A curve that is given by a formula like F(x,y) = 0, may not satisfy the vertical line test, hence it may be impossible to solve for it as a formula like y = f(x), but you may still want to know the tangent line at some point.

If you can find a point (x,y) on your curve, i.e. one that satisfies F(x,y) = 0, and if it is a point where there is a unique tangent line, then implicit differentiation let's you solve for the slope of the tangent line at that point, without solving your formula for y. This is often useful.

The hard part however is finding the coordinates of a point on a curve given in the implicit form F(x,y)= 0, but if you know what point you want the tangent line at, you are ok.e.g. the curve X^3 +X^2 Y - Y^3 + 2Y -3 = 0 has as one of its points the point (1,1). at this point the partial derivatives are not both zero, so there is a unique tangent line whose slope can be computed by implicit differentiation. in this example however the derivative wrt y is zero there, so the tangent line at this point is vertical. thus one can compute dx/dy but not dy/dx. thus at this point y is not determined implicitly as a diff'ble function of x, but x is a diff'ble implicit function of y, which is just as good for finding the tangent line. if this confuses you, exchange the letters x and y in the example and get a more traditional one.
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K