MHB Multivariable Analysis .... Directional and Partial Derivatives .... D&K Propostion 2.3.3 ....

Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading "Multidimensional Real Analysis I: Differentiation" by J. J. Duistermaat and J. A. C. Kolk ...

I am focused on Chapter 2: Differentiation ... ...

I need help with an aspect of the proof of Proposition 2.3.2 ... ...

Duistermaat and Kolk's Proposition 2.3.2 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 7847
https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7848
In the above proof by D&K we read the following:

" ... ... Assertion (i) follows from Formula (2.11). ... ..."Can someone please demonstrate (formally and rigorously) that this is the case ... that is that assertion (i) follows from Formula (2.11). ... ...Help will be appreciated ...

Peter==========================================================================================***NOTE***

It may help readers of the above post to have access to the start of Section "2.3: Directional and Partial Derivatives" ... in order to understand the context and notation of the post ... so I am providing the same ... as follows:https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/7849Hope that the above helps readers of the post understand the context and notation of the post ...

Peter
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi, Peter.

Peter said:
" ... ... Assertion (i) follows from Formula (2.11). ... ..."

Can someone please demonstrate (formally and rigorously) that this is the case ... that is that assertion (i) follows from Formula (2.11). ... ...

Try dividing the first line of (2.11) through by $t$. Now take the limit as $t\rightarrow 0$, use the definition of directional derivative and the second part of (2.11) to obtain the desired result.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

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