I found a proof for the vector chain rule, but it makese no sense to me

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around a student's confusion regarding a proof for the vector chain rule found online. The proof implies taking limits as delta t approaches zero, which the student finds unclear due to a lack of explicit limits in the explanation. It is noted that the proof requires familiarity with Taylor series and mathematical intuition beyond basic calculus. The student expresses a desire for a proof that clearly outlines the limits, as they feel more comfortable with that approach. Understanding the proof is essential, as it may be required for an upcoming exam.
mr_coffee
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone, our professor wanted us to find the vector chain rule proof and i found one here:
http://web.mit.edu/wwmath/vectorc/scalar/chain.html
But it makes no sense to me, where are the limits?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Taking the limit is implied when the author says "Now as we let delta t go to zero". This kind of proof relies a bit more on mathematical intuition than the definition for the derivative you learn in Calc I. For one thing, it implies you're familiar with approximating things by Taylor series. Which part of the proof are you having trouble with?
 
hah well i did take that in calc II but forgot even how that works, but i don't get how he starts off saying, let's first notice a few things... x(t+change in t) = x + chag in x
then he goes to say:
now by linear approximation...what the? is there another proof that goes through the limits, i understand that a lot better. He told us to find proofs and make sure we understand them, so he isn't grading this, but he will probably tell us to prove it on an exam
 
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top