I've come across a very ambiguous statement in my notes on implicit functions (part of the partial derivatives part of the course). I'll write out the preceding explanation but the problematic line is marked by *(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

"Sometimes we can define a function z=z(x, y) only in implicit form, i.e. through an equation F(x, y, z) = 0.

It is not always possible to solve this equation for z and obtain the function z=f(x,y).

In order to calculate the derivatives of a function defined implicitly we note that from the above equation it follows that:

* [tex]\delta[/tex]F=0 [tex]\Rightarrow[/tex] [tex]\delta[/tex]F = F_{x}[tex]\delta[/tex]x + F_{y}[tex]\delta[/tex]y + F_{z}[tex]\delta[/tex]z = 0.

Or by taking differentials,

F_{x}dx + F_{y}dy + F_{z}dz = 0"

My main problem is understanding how [tex]\delta[/tex]x can stand on its own (above used as a factor). Is it just the same as ∆x, i.e. a change in x and not a derivative?

Also, how the [tex]\delta[/tex] expressions change to d expressions in the second line is unclear to me...

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**

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

# Meaning of delta?

Loading...

Similar Threads - Meaning delta | Date |
---|---|

A Inverse Laplace transform of F(s)=exp(-as) as delta(t-a) | Feb 17, 2017 |

I Meaning of stability regions | Oct 30, 2016 |

Physical meaning of KdV equation | Apr 20, 2015 |

Physical meaning of KdV equation | Apr 20, 2015 |

'Mean Aversion' in Stochastic Differential Equations | Sep 1, 2014 |

**Physics Forums - The Fusion of Science and Community**