1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Higher Partial Derivatives & Chain Rule

  1. Nov 8, 2007 #1
    Higher Partial Derivatives & Chain Rule (urgent)

    I'll have a test this evening, and I don't want to fail on a question like this, so please help me out! I will greatly appreciate for any help provided.

    The question:

    My attempt:

    From the solutions manual:

    My first-order derivative is correct, but my second-order partial derivative Fjj is wrong. But I don't understand WHY I am wrong. Can someone please show me HOW to calculuate Fjj? I even tried to draw tree diagrams to clarfiy the dependence of variables, but I still got messed up, this is very very frustrating. I spent an hour looking through my work (I'm not kidding), but I can't locate my mistake, nor do I understand the way the solutions manual calculate Fjj.

    Thanks again!
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 8, 2007 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    You have [itex]F_j = x_j r^{-1}f'(r)[/itex], but when you differentiate this with respect to x_j, you neglect to differentiate the factor of x_j itself. This is what gives the first term in F_jj in the solutions manual.
  4. Nov 8, 2007 #3
    [Let D=curly d=partial derivative]

    DF_j/Dx_j = (DF_j/Dr) (Dr/Dx_j) by the tree diagram (or the chain rule). What's wrong with this?

    (DF_j/Dr) = D(f '(r) * x_j * r^-1) / Dr <----here I am differentiating with respect to r, so I just pulled out the constant x_j (it's index is j, not r, so it's constant with repsect to r), should be correct I guess.
    Last edited: Nov 8, 2007
  5. Nov 8, 2007 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    ?? r is NOT an index to begin with! r depends upons every xi so every xi depends upon r. You cannot change r without changing every xi.
  6. Nov 8, 2007 #5
    I see...
    Then how can I calculate (DF_j/Dr)? Can someone please explain this?
  7. Nov 8, 2007 #6


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    F_j is *not* a function of r alone; it *also* depends on x_j explicitly, through the factor of x_j in front. So, DF_j/Dx_j = DF_j/Dx_j + (DF_j/Dr) (Dr/Dx_j), but DF_j/Dx_j means two different things on each side; on the left, it means differentiate with respect to both explicit and implicit (through r) appearances of x_j; on the right, it means differentiate only with respect to the explicit dependence on x_j. I would prefer to call the left side dF_j/dx_j, that is, the derivative with respect to *all* dependence on x_j, both implicit and explicit. But it's a partial derivative in the sense that all other components of x are being held fixed.
  8. Nov 8, 2007 #7
    But, say, if f is a function of x,y,z, then all partial derivatives fx,fy,fz are functions of x,y,z as well. I remember seeing some remarks or theorem like this. So f, fx, fy, fz have the same tree diagram.

    So in this case, F and Fx should have the same tree diagram. Following the branches, there is only one way to get from fx to x_j, i.e. from fx to r to x_j, so shouldn't DF_j/Dx_j = (DF_j/Dr) (Dr/Dx_j) be correct?
  9. Nov 8, 2007 #8


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Yes, this is your first tree diagram. But your second tree diagram, the one that goes through r, is correct for Z but not for F_j, because F_j depends explicitly on x_j; F_j cannot be written as a function of r alone, even though Z can. So, for F_j, your second diagram is missing a branch, one that connects F_j directly to x_j without going through r.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Higher Partial Derivatives & Chain Rule