Hi all,(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

When there are two variables x, and p related via any differentiable function, we have the following identity:

[itex]\frac{dx}{dp}\frac{dp}{dx}=1[/itex]

When it comes to partial derivatives we canNOTsay [itex]\frac{\partial x}{ \partial t}\frac{\partial t}{\partial x}=1[/itex] . However I have seen the following identity which seems to be the generalization of the above identity for variables (x,y,z) and (p,q,r):

\begin{equation}

\left( \begin{array}{ccc}

\frac{\partial x}{ \partial p} & \frac{\partial y}{ \partial p} & \frac{\partial z}{ \partial p}\\

\frac{\partial x}{ \partial q} & \frac{\partial y}{ \partial q} & \frac{\partial z}{ \partial q}\\

\frac{\partial x}{ \partial r} & \frac{\partial y}{ \partial r} & \frac{\partial z}{ \partial r}\end{array} \right)

\left( \begin{array}{ccc}

\frac{\partial p}{ \partial x} & \frac{\partial q}{ \partial x} & \frac{\partial r}{ \partial x}\\

\frac{\partial p}{ \partial y} & \frac{\partial q}{ \partial y} & \frac{\partial r}{ \partial y}\\

\frac{\partial p}{ \partial z} & \frac{\partial q}{ \partial z} & \frac{\partial r}{ \partial z}\end{array} \right)=

\left( \begin{array}{ccc}

1 & 0 & 0\\

0 & 1 & 0\\

0 & 0 & 1\end{array} \right)

\end{equation}

Is the above identity true in general? If so, does anyone know of an elegant proof for that? I have two proofs but they I am looking for better ones. One mentions a function f(p,q,r) for the proof which I think it is unnecessary and also confusing, Another proof ( my own) is that we write

[itex]\frac{\partial p}{\partial p}=1 \rightarrow \frac{\partial p}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial p}+\frac{\partial p}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial p}+\frac{\partial p}{\partial z}\frac{\partial z}{\partial p}=1[/itex]

[itex]\frac{\partial p}{\partial q}=0 \rightarrow \frac{\partial p}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial q}+\frac{\partial p}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial q}+\frac{\partial p}{\partial z}\frac{\partial z}{\partial q}=0[/itex]

and so on. From nine equations we can get the identity but the proof is insulting!

I would be grateful if you share a better proof.

P.S. The left matrix is called the jacubian. Does the other matrix, which in fact is the inverse if jacubian, have a particular name?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Dismiss Notice

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Inverse of jacubian

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**