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

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion centers on Proposition 2.3.2 from "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk, specifically regarding the relationship between partial differentiability and directional derivatives. Participants clarify that the partial derivatives in (ii) correspond to directional derivatives in (i) along coordinate axes. The proof hinges on the expression $$Df(a) v = \sum_{1 \le j \le n} v_j D_j f(a)$$, demonstrating that the linear transformation of a vector can be decomposed into its components along the basis formed by unit vectors.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of directional and partial derivatives in multivariable calculus
  • Familiarity with linear transformations and vector spaces
  • Knowledge of the notation and concepts in "Multidimensional Real Analysis I" by Duistermaat and Kolk
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical proofs and notation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Proposition 2.3.2 in the context of differentiability
  • Explore the concept of linear transformations in depth, particularly in relation to vector spaces
  • Review the section on directional derivatives in "Multidimensional Real Analysis I" to solidify understanding
  • Practice proving relationships between partial and directional derivatives in various contexts
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying multivariable calculus, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to differentiation and linear transformations.

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
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K