Help with D&K Proposition 2.3.2: Directional & Partial Derivatives

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around Proposition 2.3.2 from "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk, focusing on the relationship between partial derivatives and directional derivatives. Participants seek clarification on the proof and the implications of the proposition, particularly how the partial differentiability of one statement follows from another and the mathematical formulation involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Peter requests explicit and rigorous demonstration of how the partial differentiability of (ii) is a consequence of (i) in the context of Proposition 2.3.2.
  • Some participants note that the "partial derivatives" in (ii) correspond to "directional derivatives" in (i) along the coordinate axes.
  • It is suggested that the formula follows from the representation of a vector as a sum of its components in each coordinate direction multiplied by the corresponding unit vectors.
  • Peter presents a detailed attempt to show the relationship between the directional derivative and the matrix representation of the function's derivatives.
  • There are repeated requests for confirmation of the correctness of the mathematical expressions and reasoning provided.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying degrees of understanding and agreement on the interpretations of the propositions and the mathematical steps involved. There is no clear consensus on the correctness of the presented proofs or the implications of the propositions.

Contextual Notes

The discussion includes complex mathematical expressions and relies on specific definitions and notations from the referenced text. Some assumptions and steps in the reasoning remain unresolved, leading to uncertainty in the conclusions drawn by participants.

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 2: Differentiation ... ...

I need help with another aspect of the proof of Proposition 2.3.2 ... ...

Duistermaat and Kolk's Proposition 2.3.2 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 7850
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7851
In the above proof we read the following:

" ... ... The partial differentiability of (ii) is a consequence of (i); the formula follows from $$Df(a) \in \text{ Lin} ( \mathbb{R}^n , \mathbb{R}^p )$$ and $$v = \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j e_j $$ ( see 1.11) ... ... "Can someone please demonstrate explicitly and rigorously how it is that the partial differentiability of (ii) is a consequence of (i) and, further, how exactly it is that the formula follows from $$Df(a) \in \text{ Lin} ( \mathbb{R}^n , \mathbb{R}^p )$$ and $$v = \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j e_j$$ ... ...
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter==========================================================================================***NOTE***

It may help readers of the above post to have access to the start of Section "2.3: Directional and Partial Derivatives" ... in order to understand the context and notation of the post ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:
View attachment 7852The above post refers to (1.1) so I am providing text relevant to and including (1.1) ... as follows ...View attachment 7853Hope that the above notes/text help readers of the post understand the context and notation of the post ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The "partial derivatives" in (ii) are the "directional derivatives" in (i) in the direction of the coordinate axes. The formula follows from the fact that a vector can be written as a sum of its component in each coordinate direction times a unit vector in that direction- that the unit vectors in each coordinate direction form a basis for the vector space.
 
Country Boy said:
The "partial derivatives" in (ii) are the "directional derivatives" in (i) in the direction of the coordinate axes. The formula follows from the fact that a vector can be written as a sum of its component in each coordinate direction times a unit vector in that direction- that the unit vectors in each coordinate direction form a basis for the vector space.
Thanks Country Boy ...

... appreciate the help ...

Peter
 
Peter said:
I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 2: Differentiation ... ...

I need help with another aspect of the proof of Proposition 2.3.2 ... ...

Duistermaat and Kolk's Proposition 2.3.2 and its proof read as follows:In the above proof we read the following:

" ... ... The partial differentiability of (ii) is a consequence of (i); the formula follows from $$Df(a) \in \text{ Lin} ( \mathbb{R}^n , \mathbb{R}^p )$$ and $$v = \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j e_j $$ ( see 1.11) ... ... "Can someone please demonstrate explicitly and rigorously how it is that the partial differentiability of (ii) is a consequence of (i) and, further, how exactly it is that the formula follows from $$Df(a) \in \text{ Lin} ( \mathbb{R}^n , \mathbb{R}^p )$$ and $$v = \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j e_j$$ ... ...
Help will be much appreciated ...

Peter==========================================================================================***NOTE***

It may help readers of the above post to have access to the start of Section "2.3: Directional and Partial Derivatives" ... in order to understand the context and notation of the post ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:
The above post refers to (1.1) so I am providing text relevant to and including (1.1) ... as follows ...Hope that the above notes/text help readers of the post understand the context and notation of the post ...

Peter
Here is an attempt to show $$Df(a) v = \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j D_j f(a) \ \ \ \ (v \in \mathbb{R}^n ) $$
Now we have ...$$Df(a) v = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1(a) & D_2 f_1(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_1(a) \\ D_1 f_2(a) & D_2 f_2(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_2(a) \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ D_1 f_p(a) & D_2 f_p(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_p(a) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} v_1 \\ v_2 \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ v_n \end{pmatrix}$$

$$ = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1(a) v_1 + D_2 f_1(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_1(a) v_n \\ D_1 f_2(a) v_1 + D_2 f_2(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_2(a) v_n \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ D_1 f_p(a) v_1 + D_2 f_p(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_p(a) v_n \end{pmatrix} $$
Now $$D_j f(a) = D_{e_j} f(a) = D f(a) e_j$$ ...

But ... taking (as an example) $$j = 1$$ ... ... i.e. $$e_j = e_1$$ ... we have

$$ D_1 f(a) = D_{ e_1} f(a) = D f(a) e_1 = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1(a) & D_2 f_1(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_1(a) \\ D_1 f_2(a) & D_2 f_2(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_2(a) \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ D_1 f_p(a) & D_2 f_p(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_p(a) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}
$$
$$= \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1 (a) \\ D_1 f_2 (a) \\ D_1 f_3 (a) \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_1 f_p (a) \end{pmatrix}
$$
$$= D_{ e_1} f(a) = D_1 f(a) $$
... and similar expressions can be derived for $$D_2 f(a), D_3 f(a) , \ ... \ ...\ , \ D_n f(a)$$ ...

From the above, it is clear that $$\sum_{ 1 \le j \le n} v_j D_j f(a) = Df(a) v$$

Can someone please confirm that the above is basically correct ...?
Peter
 
Last edited:
Peter said:
Here is an attempt to show $$Df(a) v = \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j D_j f(a) \ \ \ \ (v \in \mathbb{R}^n ) $$
Now we have ...$$Df(a) v = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1(a) & D_2 f_1(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_1(a) \\ D_1 f_2(a) & D_2 f_2(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_2(a) \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ D_1 f_p(a) & D_2 f_p(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_p(a) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} v_1 \\ v_2 \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ v_n \end{pmatrix}$$

$$ = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1(a) v_1 + D_2 f_1(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_1(a) v_n \\ D_1 f_2(a) v_1 + D_2 f_2(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_2(a) v_n \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ D_1 f_p(a) v_1 + D_2 f_p(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_p(a) v_n \end{pmatrix} $$
Now $$D_j f(a) = D_{e_j} f(a) = D f(a) e_j$$ ...

But ... taking (as an example) $$j = 1$$ ... ... i.e. $$e_j = e_1$$ ... we have

$$ D_1 f(a) = D_{ e_1} f(a) = D f(a) e_1 = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1(a) & D_2 f_1(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_1(a) \\ D_1 f_2(a) & D_2 f_2(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_2(a) \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ ... & ... & ... & ... &... \\ D_1 f_p(a) & D_2 f_p(a) & ... & ... & D_n f_p(a) \end{pmatrix} \begin{pmatrix} 1 \\ 0 \\ 0 \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ 0 \end{pmatrix}
$$
$$= \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1 (a) \\ D_1 f_2 (a) \\ D_1 f_3 (a) \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_1 f_p (a) \end{pmatrix}
$$
$$= D_{ e_1} f(a) = D_1 f(a) $$
... and similar expressions can be derived for $$D_2 f(a), D_3 f(a) , \ ... \ ...\ , \ D_n f(a)$$ ...

From the above, it is clear that $$\sum_{ 1 \le j \le n} v_j D_j f(a) = Df(a) v$$

Can someone please confirm that the above is basically correct ...?
Peter
l will now attempt to, explicitly, complete the demonstration that $$Df(a) v = \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j D_j f(a) \ \ \ \ (v \in \mathbb{R}^n ) $$In the previous post we have demonstrated that

$$D_1 f(a) = D_{ e_1} f(a) = D f(a) e_1 = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1 (a) \\ D_1 f_2 (a) \\ D_1 f_3 (a) \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_1 f_p (a) \end{pmatrix}$$

... ... and in general

$$D_j f(a) = D_{ e_j} f(a) = D f(a) e_j =\begin{pmatrix} D_j f_1 (a) \\ D_j f_2 (a) \\ D_j f_3 (a) \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_j f_p (a) \end{pmatrix}$$
So ...$$v_1 D_1 f(a) = v_1 \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1 (a) \\ D_1 f_2 (a) \\ D_1 f_3 (a) \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_1 f_p (a) \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} v_1 D_1 f_1 (a) \\ v_1 D_1 f_2 (a) \\ v_1 D_1 f_3 (a) \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ v_1 D_1 f_p (a) \end{pmatrix} = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1 (a) v_1 \\ D_1 f_2 (a) v_1 \\ D_1 f_3 (a) v_1 \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_1 f_p (a) v_1 \end{pmatrix}
$$
and in general ...$$v_j D_j f(a) = \begin{pmatrix} D_j f_1 (a) v_j \\ D_j f_2 (a) v_j \\ D_j f_3 (a) v_j \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_1 f_p (a) v_j \end{pmatrix}$$
So ... ...$$ \sum_{ 1 \le j \le n } v_j D_j f(a)$$ $$= \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1 (a) v_1 \\ D_1 f_2 (a) v_1 \\ D_1 f_3 (a) v_1 \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_1 f_p (a) v_1 \end{pmatrix} + \begin{pmatrix} D_2 f_1 (a) v_2 \\ D_2 f_2 (a) v_2 \\ D_2 f_3 (a) v_2 \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_2 f_p (a) v_2 \end{pmatrix} + \ ... \ ... \ \begin{pmatrix} D_j f_1 (a) v_j \\ D_j f_2 (a) v_j \\ D_j f_3 (a) v_j \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_j f_p (a) v_j \end{pmatrix} + \ ... \ ... \ + \begin{pmatrix} D_n f_1 (a) v_n \\ D_n f_2 (a) v_n \\ D_n f_3 (a) v_n \\ ... \\ ... \\ ... \\ D_n f_p (a) v_n \end{pmatrix}
$$

= $$ = \begin{pmatrix} D_1 f_1(a) v_1 + D_2 f_1(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_1(a) v_n \\ D_1 f_2(a) v_1 + D_2 f_2(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_2(a) v_n \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \ ... \\ D_1 f_p(a) v_1 + D_2 f_p(a) v_2 + \ ... \ ... \ + D_n f_p(a) v_n \end{pmatrix} $$$$= Df(a) v$$
Can someone please either confirm the above demonstration is correct or point out the errors and shortcomings ...

Peter
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
1K