How Does the Chain Rule Apply to Homogeneous Functions in Calculus?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the chain rule to homogeneous functions in calculus, specifically focusing on the relationship between the partial derivatives of a homogeneous function of degree n and its scaled variables.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Conceptual clarification

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the application of the chain rule to the definition of homogeneous functions, with attempts to derive the relationship between the partial derivatives. Questions arise regarding the equivalence of partial derivatives with respect to different variables and the implications of scaling.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of the validity of the stated relationship between the derivatives. Some participants express uncertainty about the correctness of the original problem statement, while others suggest testing specific functions to verify the claim.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the problem is sourced from a calculus textbook and question whether there may be a typographical error in the problem statement regarding the derivatives involved.

anatta
Messages
3
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


A function is called homogeneous of degree n if it satisfied the equation f(tx,ty) =t^(n) f(x,y), for all t, where n is a positive integer and f has continuous 2nd order partial derivatives.

If f is homogeneous of degree n, show that df/dx (tx,ty) = t^(n-1) df/dx(x,y)

*Using df/dx for partial derviatives.

The Attempt at a Solution



Basically I've taken the partial derivatives of each side of the definition of homogeneous equation above, applying the chain rule (that's what section the problem is in). What I get is:

d/d(tx) (tx,ty) * t = t^n d/dx(x,y)

which simplifies to df/d(tx) (tx,ty) = t^(n-1) df/dx(x,y).

It feels like I'm done, but I can't figure out-conceptually or otherwise- why the partial derivative with respect to (tx) of f(tx,ty) is the same as the partial derivative with respect to x of f(tx,ty).

Thanks in advance for help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
anatta said:

Homework Statement


A function is called homogeneous of degree n if it satisfied the equation f(tx,ty) =t^(n) f(x,y), for all t, where n is a positive integer and f has continuous 2nd order partial derivatives.

If f is homogeneous of degree n, show that df/dx (tx,ty) = t^(n-1) df/dx(x,y)

*Using df/dx for partial derviatives.

The Attempt at a Solution



Basically I've taken the partial derivatives of each side of the definition of homogeneous equation above, applying the chain rule (that's what section the problem is in). What I get is:

d/d(tx) (tx,ty) * t = t^n d/dx(x,y)

which simplifies to df/d(tx) (tx,ty) = t^(n-1) df/dx(x,y).

It feels like I'm done, but I can't figure out-conceptually or otherwise- why the partial derivative with respect to (tx) of f(tx,ty) is the same as the partial derivative with respect to x of f(tx,ty).
It's not! \partial f(tx,ty)/\partial (tx) is the same as \partial f(u,ty)/\partial u for any variable u. \partial f(tx,ty)/\partial x= \partial f(xt,ty)/\partial (xt) \partial f(tx)\partial x.

In other words \partial f(tx,ty)/\partial x is t times \partial f(tx,ty)/\partial (tx).

Thanks in advance for help!
 
Yes, that's what I got when I applied the chain rule, although maybe my notation was confusing.

d(tx,ty)/d(tx) times t = t^n d(x,y)/dx
(the right side of the equation is the partial derivative with wrt x of the function given in the original definition)

once you divide by t you get

d(tx,ty)/d(tx) =t^(n-1) d(x,y)/dx

What I don't get is how to deal with the partial derivative w.r.t. (tx). The left side of the equation needs to be d(tx,ty) w.r.t to x for the requested proof.
 
anatta said:
If f is homogeneous of degree n, show that df/dx (tx,ty) = t^(n-1) df/dx(x,y)
Is this even true? Try it out for the case f(x,y) \ = \ xy^3 + x^2 y^2.

Did you mean to say t^n \frac{\partial}{\partial x} f(x,y) on the RHS instead? I assume t is an arbitrary constant.
 
You're right, it doesn't seem to work for the case you give. That is definitely how the problem is stated, though. It's from Stewart Calculus, 5ed, 14.6, #55. I guess it could be a typo...?
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
10
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K