Leibniz Rule for multivariable function

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Leibniz rule for differentiating an integral with variable limits and an integrand that depends on an additional variable. Participants explore the application of the chain rule and the implications of boundary terms in the context of multivariable calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant seeks to demonstrate the Leibniz rule for an integral with variable limits and a dependent integrand, questioning how to handle cases where the integrand's partial derivative is not zero.
  • Another participant suggests approaching the problem from first principles, indicating a preference for a fundamental understanding of the concepts involved.
  • There is a discussion about the correct application of the chain rule, with participants debating the treatment of the limits of integration and the need to adjust them when differentiating.
  • Some participants propose using approximations for the limits of integration, while others express a desire for a more exact method.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the notation for partial derivatives, with one participant explaining the meaning of the notation used for derivatives with respect to the first variable in a multivariable function.
  • There is confusion about the treatment of the bounds of integration when applying the chain rule, with participants seeking clarity on how to incorporate these bounds correctly.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of agreement on the approach to the problem, with some advocating for a more rigorous treatment of the limits and others suggesting approximations. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best method to apply the Leibniz rule in this context.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the dependence of the integration limits on the variable x, which complicates the differentiation process. There is also mention of potential confusion regarding the treatment of dummy variables in the context of the integral.

member 428835
Hi PF!

Can anyone help me with showing the following: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} L(x,y)dy = \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} dy + \frac{\partial g}{\partial x} L(g,y) - \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} L(f,y)$$

I understand this as the fundamental theorem if ##\frac{\partial L}{\partial x} = 0## but how do I deal with this if it is not equal to zero? i was thinking about trying to say let ##F(x,f,g) = \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} L(x,y)dy## and use chain rule but I'm not sure how to deal with the boundary terms.

Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You want to go at it from first principles.
 
Sorry, I'm a little confused at what you're saying. Are you asking if I want to or telling me I should?
 
What I have if I use the chain rule is $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial g}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} L(x,y) dy$$. Now we may have $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{\int_f^g L(x+\Delta x,y) dy - \int_f^gL(x,y) dy}{\Delta x}$$ (So far is this correct? I haven't done anything with the ##\Delta x## in ##f## or ##g##, but should I have added ##\Delta x## in the bounds?)

At any rate, once we move the limit in the integral we can write $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x} = \int_f^g \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} dy$$. Thus, this addresses our first term of the three in the chain rule approach. Can someone answer my questions here and let me know if this is correct, and how to proceed?

Thanks so much!

Josh
 
joshmccraney said:
What I have if I use the chain rule is $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial F}{\partial g}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial}{\partial x} \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} L(x,y) dy$$. Now we may have $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x} = \lim_{\Delta x \to 0} \frac{\int_f^g L(x+\Delta x,y) dy - \int_f^gL(x,y) dy}{\Delta x}$$ (So far is this correct? I haven't done anything with the ##\Delta x## in ##f## or ##g##, but should I have added ##\Delta x## in the bounds?)

At any rate, once we move the limit in the integral we can write $$\frac{\partial F}{\partial x} = \int_f^g \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} dy$$. Thus, this addresses our first term of the three in the chain rule approach. Can someone answer my questions here and let me know if this is correct, and how to proceed?

Thanks so much!

Josh

The integration limits themselves depend on x.
So you need to write g(x+h) (or delta x) and f(x+h) for that one there.
 
HomogenousCow said:
The integration limits themselves depend on x.
So you need to write g(x+h) (or delta x) and f(x+h) for that one there.
Shoot, I was afraid of this! This puts me even further back than where I was. Can you give me some help then on how to proceed?
 
You might have to just "cheat" and use g(x+h)=g(x)+g'(x)h and then break the integral up.
Edit: When I say break it up I mean break the integral into a few pieces to isolate the individual integration limits.
 
HomogenousCow said:
You might have to just "cheat" and use g(x+h)=g(x)+g'(x)h and then break the integral up.
Edit: When I say break it up I mean break the integral into a few pieces to isolate the individual integration limits.
Hahaha. Yep, I'm with you. But this would then be approximate, right? How would it be done exact? (We have been using this extensively and I don't mind but since it's an engineering course we don't prove it and I would like seeing that it works.)
 
joshmccraney said:
Can anyone help me with showing the following: $$\frac{\partial}{\partial x} \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} L(x,y)dy = \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} dy + \frac{\partial g}{\partial x} L(g,y) - \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} L(f,y)$$
There's something wrong here. y is just a dummy variable on the left-hand side, so why are there two y's that aren't dummy variables on the right-hand side?

joshmccraney said:
i was thinking about trying to say let ##F(x,f,g) = \int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} L(x,y)dy## and use chain rule but I'm not sure how to deal with the boundary terms.
I think this idea works. You just need to be more careful with the details. You define F by
$$F(x,s,t)=\int_s^t L(x,y)\mathrm dy,$$ for all x,s,t. Your job is to compute ##\frac{d}{dx}F(x,f(x),g(x))##, right? The chain rule tells you that
$$\frac{d}{dx}F(x,f(x),g(x)) =D_1F(x,f(x),g(x))+D_2F(x,f(x),g(x))f'(x)+D_3F(x,f(x),g(x))g'(x).$$
 
Last edited:
  • #10
Fredrik said:
There's something wrong here. y is just a dummy variable on the left-hand side, so why are there two y's that aren't dummy variables on the right-hand side?
Yikes, I should definitely have written ##L(x,f(x))## and ##L(x,g(x))## instead of the ##y##. Sorry about that!

Fredrik said:
I think this idea works. You just need to be more careful with the details. You define F by
$$F(x,s,t)=\int_s^t L(x,y)\mathrm dy,$$ for all x,s,t. Your job is to compute ##\frac{d}{dx}F(x,f(x),g(x))##, right? The chain rule tells you that
$$\frac{d}{dx}F(x,f(x),g(x)) =D_1F(x,f(x),g(x))+D_2F(x,f(x),g(x))f'(x)+D_3F(x,f(x),g(x))g'(x).$$
Can you tell me what ##D_1## means? I'm afraid I've lost you.

Thanks for your help!
 
  • #11
joshmccraney said:
Can you tell me what ##D_1## means? I'm afraid I've lost you.
It's a standard notation for the partial derivative with respect to the first variable slot. It's a more versatile notation than ##\frac{\partial}{\partial x}##, which is only appropriate when the first variable is denoted by ##x##. So ##D_1F## is the function defined by
$$D_1F(x,s,t)=\lim_{h\to 0}\frac{F(x+h,s,t)-F(x,s,t)}{h}$$ for all ##x,s,t##.
 
Last edited:
  • #12
Gotcha! So $$D_1 F(x,s,t) = \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\int_{s(x+h)}^{t(x+h)} L(x+h,y)dy - \int_{s(x)}^{t(x)} L(x,y)dy}{h}$$ but how do i proceed? My idea was to consolidate integrals and swap order with the limit but the bounds are different. Any ideas?
 
  • #13
My s and t aren't functions. When I said "for all x,s,t", I meant for all ##x,s,t\in\mathbb R##. What I wrote down is just the definition of the partial derivative with respect to the first variable slot, applied to the function F. The calculation of the partial derivatives is actually pretty simple. You don't need to work directly with the definition of partial derivative. You just need a solid understanding of functions and partial derivatives.
\begin{align}
&D_1F(x,f(x),g(x))=\left(\left.\frac{d}{dx}F(x,s,t)\right)\right|_{s=f(x),\, t=g(x)} =\left(\left.\frac{d}{dx}\int_s^t L(x,y)\mathrm dy\right)\right|_{s=f(x),\, t=g(x)}\\
&=\left(\left.\int_s^t\frac{\partial}{\partial x}L(x,y)\mathrm dy\right) \right|_{s=f(x),\, t=g(x)} =\int_{f(x)}^{g(x)}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}L(x,y)\mathrm dy.
\end{align}
 
  • #14
Fredrik said:
My s and t aren't functions. When I said "for all x,s,t", I meant for all ##x,s,t\in\mathbb R##. What I wrote down is just the definition of the partial derivative with respect to the first variable slot, applied to the function F. The calculation of the partial derivatives is actually pretty simple. You don't need to work directly with the definition of partial derivative. You just need a solid understanding of functions and partial derivatives.
\begin{align}
&D_1F(x,f(x),g(x))=\left(\left.\frac{d}{dx}F(x,s,t)\right)\right|_{s=f(x),\, t=g(x)} =\left(\left.\frac{d}{dx}\int_s^t L(x,y)\mathrm dy\right)\right|_{s=f(x),\, t=g(x)}\\
&=\left(\left.\int_s^t\frac{\partial}{\partial x}L(x,y)\mathrm dy\right) \right|_{s=f(x),\, t=g(x)} =\int_{f(x)}^{g(x)}\frac{\partial}{\partial x}L(x,y)\mathrm dy.
\end{align}
So why aren't the bounds included? I'm a little confused if ##s=f(x)##. Can you tell me what I'm missing?
 
  • #15
I could have stated that more clearly. For all ##x,s,t\in\mathbb R##, we have
$$D_1F(x,s,t)=\frac{d}{dx}\int_s^tL(x,y)\mathrm dy=\int_s^t \frac{\partial}{\partial x}L(x,y)\mathrm dy.$$ This implies that for all ##x\in\mathbb R##, we have
$$D_1F(x,f(x),g(x)) =\int_{f(x)}^{g(x)} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}L(x,y)\mathrm dy.$$
 
  • #16
How then would we write ##D_2 F(x,s,t)##? Sorry, I'm just a little confused here.
 
  • #17
joshmccraney said:
How then would we write ##D_2 F(x,s,t)##? Sorry, I'm just a little confused here.
$$D_2F(x,s,t)=\frac{d}{ds}\int_s^t L(x,y)\mathrm dy.$$ To compute ##D_2F(x,f(x),g(x))##, you can use the fundamental theorem of calculus on the above, and when you're done, substitute f(x) and g(x) for s and t respectively. Alternatively, (this is just another way of writing the same thing) you can use this notation from the start:
$$D_2F(x,f(x),g(x))=\frac{d}{ds}\bigg|_{f(x)}\int_s^{g(x)}L(x,y)\mathrm dy.$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: member 428835
  • #18
Gotcha! Thanks a ton! You rock!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K