Leibniz notation when taking derivatives

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of Leibniz notation in taking derivatives, particularly in the context of parametric and polar equations. Participants explore the implications of differentiating functions with respect to different variables and the use of the chain rule in various scenarios.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about taking derivatives of parametric equations and seeks clarification on whether the derivative of a function remains the same when the variable is expressed as a function of another variable.
  • Another participant confirms that the derivative of a function with respect to x remains the same regardless of the dependence on t, but questions the application of the chain rule in one instance.
  • Participants discuss the relationship between derivatives of y with respect to x and the use of the chain rule, particularly in the context of parametric equations.
  • A participant raises a question about whether an antiderivative remains valid when substituting a new variable, leading to a discussion about the definitions of f(t) and f(u).
  • One participant corrects another by stating that f(t) does not equal f(u), clarifying that f(u) is a function of a different variable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the application of derivatives in the context discussed, but there are points of contention regarding the interpretation of certain expressions and the relationship between different functions. The discussion remains unresolved on some aspects, particularly regarding the equivalence of f(t) and f(u).

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about the correct application of the chain rule and the implications of substituting variables in derivative expressions. There are also limitations in how the relationships between different functions are articulated, particularly in terms of variable dependence.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for students and practitioners in mathematics and physics who are grappling with the nuances of differentiation, particularly in the context of parametric equations and variable substitutions.

dumbQuestion
Messages
124
Reaction score
0
Hello,I am encountering some major confusion. When taking just garden variety f(x)=y derivatives of the form dy/dx, I don't encounter any problems. But recently I started taking derivatives of parametric equations, or switching things up using polar equations and I realized perhaps I'm not so solid on these things as I once thought.Is there any way someone could tell me if I'm right about a few problems?So say we have:

2x2+3x

if we go (d/dx)(2x2+3x) the answer is just (4x+3)Now what if x is actually a function of another variable, say, t for instance. Say we know in reality, that x=2t.Now is (d/dx)(2x2+3x) still (4x+3)? after all, we are only asking about the differential in terms of xNow (d/dt)(2x2+3x) = (d/dx)(dx/dt)(2x2+3x) = (4x+3)(2)

Right?Ok so now what if we havey=2x2
x=4t

(dy/dx)=4x

(d/dx)(2x2)=4x

Also, (dx/dt)=4, which is the same as writing (d/dt)(4t)=4Now, we could also write:

(dy/dx)=(dy/dt)/(dt/dx)If we plug in (4t) for x, we get
y=2(4t)2=32t2

So dy/dt=64t

We know (dx/dt)=4 --> (dt/dx)=1/4 (since this denominator never goes to 0)

so (dy/dx) = (dy/dt)*(dt/dx)=64t*(1/4) = 16tFrom the equation x=4t given above we know, t = (1/4)x

so (dy/dx)= 16t= 16(x/4) = 4xIs this all right?~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~Another confusing question for me:say we have x=3t

Would d/dx(sinx)=cosx

Or would it be

d/dx(sinx)=(cosx)(x')=(cosx)(dx/dt)=(cosx)(3)When I see d/dx, I always think that just means, "take the derivative of this in terms of x only". What if we know x is a function of another variable though?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
dumbQuestion said:
Hello,


I am encountering some major confusion. When taking just garden variety f(x)=y derivatives of the form dy/dx, I don't encounter any problems. But recently I started taking derivatives of parametric equations, or switching things up using polar equations and I realized perhaps I'm not so solid on these things as I once thought.


Is there any way someone could tell me if I'm right about a few problems?


So say we have:

2x2+3x

if we go (d/dx)(2x2+3x) the answer is just (4x+3)
Yes, that is correct.

Now what if x is actually a function of another variable, say, t for instance. Say we know in reality, that x=2t.


Now is (d/dx)(2x2+3x) still (4x+3)? after all, we are only asking about the differential in terms of x
Yes, that is still correct. We are differentiating with respect to x so any dependence on t is irrelevant.

Now (d/dt)(2x2+3x) = (d/dx)(dx/dt)(2x2+3x) = (4x+3)(2)

Right?
The middle term there looks suspicious. You should have (dx/dt)(d/dx)(2x2+3x)
so it doesn't look like you want to differentiate (dx/dt) with respect to x. Other than that, yes, that is a correct application of the "chain rule". Notice that could also have replaced x with 2t:
2x2+ 3x= 2(2t)2+ 3(2t)= 8t2+ 6t and the derivative of that is 16t+ t. Of course, that is the same as 2(4x+ 3)= 2(4(2t)+ 3)= 16t+ 6

Ok so now what if we have


y=2x2
x=4t

(dy/dx)=4x

(d/dx)(2x2)=4x

Also, (dx/dt)=4, which is the same as writing (d/dt)(4t)=4


Now, we could also write:

(dy/dx)=(dy/dt)/(dt/dx)


If we plug in (4t) for x, we get
y=2(4t)2=32t2

So dy/dt=64t

We know (dx/dt)=4 --> (dt/dx)=1/4 (since this denominator never goes to 0)

so (dy/dx) = (dy/dt)*(dt/dx)=64t*(1/4) = 16t


From the equation x=4t given above we know, t = (1/4)x

so (dy/dx)= 16t= 16(x/4) = 4x


Is this all right?
Yes, that is completely correct.
 
Thanks again, hallsOfIvy. Since I have come to this forum you have answered so so many of my questions. I almost feel bad asking questions. I just hope you know how much I appreciate yours and others contributions. For myself I am just reviewing all of these concepts which are old to me, and it has helped my review so incredibly much to get feedback and insight from users here. I wish I could contribute more so I wouldn't just be taking taking taking and not giving, but unfortunately I am not yet confident enough in any answers to think I would be giving a correct answers to users who are submitting questions.
 
Perhaps if I could ask one more question to make sure I've "got it"So, say we have a function F(t). We can say F(t) is an antiderivative of f(t) if d/dt(F(t))=f(t)Now if we have two such functions, does that mean for some u we can automatically say that:

F(u) is an antiderivative of u, and that d/du(F(u))=f(u) ?For example,

for f(x)=2x, we know that F(x)=x2 is an antiderivative, and that d/dx(F(x))=d/dx(x2)=2x=f(x)Now let's say, u=3t+4

Does this mean that if we plug u in, and get

f(u)=2(3t+4) and F(u)=(3t+4)2, that F(u) is still an antiderivative of f(u) and therefored/du(F(u))=d/du((3t+4)2)=d/du(u2)=2u=2(3t+4)=f(t)=f(u)

?
 
dumbQuestion said:
d/du(F(u))=d/du((3t+4)2)=d/du(u2)=2u=2(3t+4)=f(t)=f(u)

?

The last statement = f(t) = f(u) is incorrect, f(t) does not equal f(u).
f(u) equals f(3t+4) which is not the same thing as f(t).

Everything else looks good though.

BiP
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K