How did v come out of this derivative?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dens
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding the emergence of the variable "v" in the context of a derivative related to a function expressed in terms of "r", which is a function of time. Participants are exploring the application of the chain rule and implicit differentiation in this calculus problem.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the chain rule and implicit differentiation to derive the relationship involving "v". Questions are raised about the role of "v" and how it relates to the derivative of the flux expressed as a function of "r".

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing insights into the chain rule and implicit differentiation. Some have acknowledged the need to clarify the appearance of "v" in the context of the derivative, while others are exploring different interpretations of the problem.

Contextual Notes

There is a mention of the original poster's confusion regarding the variable "v" and its derivation, as well as the relationship between "r" and time. Participants are considering the implications of differentiating functions that are dependent on time.

Dens
Messages
74
Reaction score
0
How did "v" come out of this derivative?

Homework Statement




ffa.jpg




The Attempt at a Solution



I basically understood how to attack the problem and my answer was very close to the key. The only thing bothering me is that v on the top. I cannot see how that could come up anywhere.

I know that the "r" is r = r(t), so that I am only taking the derivative of $$\ln(1 + w/r)$$. I don't see where the v actually is
 
Physics news on Phys.org


The flux is expressed as a function of r. You're taking the derivative with respect to t. So, recall the chain rule of calculus: first take the derivative with respect to r and then multiply by the derivative of r with respect to t.
 


Nope, implicit differentiation. I had forgotten about that
 


Dens said:
Nope, implicit differentiation.
Here's the chain rule: If [itex]y=f[/itex] and [itex]u = g[x][/itex] are differentiable functions, then [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{dy}{du}[/itex][itex]\cdot[/itex][itex]\frac{du}{dx}[/itex]

You have the flux expressed as a function of r: [itex]\Phi[r][/itex] and r is some function of time: [itex]r[t][/itex].

So, the chain rule says [itex]\frac{d\Phi}{dt}[/itex] = [itex]\frac{d\Phi}{dr}[/itex][itex]\cdot[/itex][itex]\frac{dr}{dt}[/itex]

This get's you the answer and it shows why the speed v appears.

How do you get the answer using implicit differentiation?
 


TSny said:
Here's the chain rule: If [itex]y=f[/itex] and [itex]u = g[x][/itex] are differentiable functions, then [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{dy}{du}[/itex][itex]\cdot[/itex][itex]\frac{du}{dx}[/itex]

You have the flux expressed as a function of r: [itex]\Phi[r][/itex] and r is some function of time: [itex]r[t][/itex].

So, the chain rule says [itex]\frac{d\Phi}{dt}[/itex] = [itex]\frac{d\Phi}{dr}[/itex][itex]\cdot[/itex][itex]\frac{dr}{dt}[/itex]

This get's you the answer and it shows why the speed v appears.

How do you get the answer using implicit differentiation?


No you are right, I forget the $\phi$ on the LHS. I was thinking something like

Something = r as a function of t ==> differentiate both sides wrt t ==> implicitly differentiate RHS

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=D[ln%281+%2B+w%2Fr%28t%29%29%2Ct]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
5K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
12
Views
2K