Help Proving (dy/dx)=1/(dx/dy)

  • Thread starter Thread starter danerape
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Proof
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the proof of the relationship (dy/dx) = 1/(dx/dy) in the context of calculus, particularly focusing on implicit differentiation and the implications of function invertibility.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the definitions of dy/dx and dx/dy, questioning the implications of differentiating implicitly. Some raise concerns about the generality of the proof when y cannot be expressed explicitly as a function of x. Others discuss the relevance of the inverse function theorem in this context.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants providing insights into the nature of implicit differentiation and the conditions under which functions can be inverted. Some guidance has been offered regarding the inverse function theorem, but no consensus has been reached on the proof's generality.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of differentiability and the continuity of derivatives in the context of the inverse function theorem, as well as the forum's emphasis on effort and understanding in the discussion.

danerape
Messages
31
Reaction score
0
How does one go about rigorously proving that (dy/dx)=1/(dx/dy)?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
and vice-versa of course
 
how can y=f(x) define y implicitly? that seems explicit.
 
the above is in regard to the link provided
 
You need to show some more effort here, per the forum rules. We're not here to do your homework for you.
 
This isn't for homework. Here is my attempt at a proof.

1.Say we are given a function y=f(x)

2.Differentiate implicit w.r.t. y and we see...

1=(df/dx)(dx/dy)

3. Now we can solve for the derivative of our choice!

Now, my question is...

doesn't the result of 2(implicit differentiation) imply that we thought of y=f(x) as y=f(x(y))? In other words,
implicit diff stems from the chain rule right? So, doesn't that mean that the proof above is not general, in other
words, what if I can't solve y=f(x) for x as a function of y explicitly? Then I can't say y=f(x) is the same as y=f(x(y))
and obtain the right side of 2 which results from the chain rule.

Any ideas?
 
Last edited:
danerape said:
...what if I can't solve y=f(x) for x as a function of y explicitly?

Have you ever heard of the inverse function theorem? I will summarize it for a function of one variable, since the formulation is a bit easier. The theorem effectively says that if you have a function f:A\subset \mathbb{R}\rightarrow \mathbb{R} which is differentiable and has a continuous derivative on some open set A, and f'(a)\neq 0 at some point a\in A, then f^{-1} exists and is defined in some neighbourhood of a.

In the context of your problem, this means that as long as f is C^1, and its derivative isn't zero one the whole domain, then SOMEWHERE in its domain, f is invertible. Suppose that f is invertible on U\subset A as above. Then we have a function f^{-1} : f(U)\rightarrow A which satisfies f^{-1}(f(x))=x for all x \in U.

In conclusion, if f(x)=y, then so long as y is in f(U), we have x=f^{-1}(y).

In short... you can always solve y=f(x) for x as a function of y somewhere, as long as f is continuously differentiable and isn't a constant function.
 
Last edited:
Well.. A neat lil trick you can do is (given f^-1=g), f(g(x))=x, derivative of bother sides is f'(g(x))*g'(x)=1, proceed from there :)
(assuming invertibility)
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K