MHB Multivariable Differentiation .... McInerney Definition 3.1.1

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on understanding Definition 3.1.1 from Andrew McInerney's book regarding multivariable differentiation. An example is provided where the function f is defined as f(x) = (2x, 3x + 1), and the participants analyze the limit to determine the linear transformation T_a(h). It is clarified that T_a(h) can be interpreted as T_a multiplied by h, leading to the conclusion that T_a equals (2, 3). The participants express confusion over the notation and its implications, ultimately confirming that T_a is a linear transformation without dependence on h. This exploration highlights the relationship between linear transformations and limits in the context of multivariable calculus.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew McInerney's book: First Steps in Diofferential Geometry: Riemannian, Contact, Symplectic ... and I am focused on Chapter 3: Advanced Calculus ... and in particular on Section 3.1: The Derivative and Linear Approximation ...

I am trying to fully understand Definition 3.1.1 and need help with an example based on the definition ...

Definition 3.1.1 reads as follows:
View attachment 8913I constructed the following example ...

Let $$f: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^2 $$

such that $$f = ( f^1, f^2 )$$

where $$f^1(x) = 2x$$ and $$f^2(x) = 3x + 1$$

We wish to determine $$T_a(h)$$ ... We have $$f(a + h) = ( f^1(a + h), f^2(a + h) )= (2a + 2h, 3a + 3h +1 )$$

and

$$f(a ) = ( f^1(a ), f^2(a ) ) = (2a , 3a +1 )$$
Now ... consider ... $\displaystyle \lim_{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid \to 0} \frac{ \mid \mid f(a + h) - f(a) - T_a(h) \mid \mid }{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid } $$$\Longrightarrow \displaystyle \lim_{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid \to 0} \frac{ \mid \mid (2a + 2h, 3a + 3h +1) - (2a, 3a + 1) - T_a(h) \mid \mid }{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid }$$$$\Longrightarrow \displaystyle \lim_{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid \to 0} \frac{ \mid \mid ( 2h, 3h ) - T_a(h) \mid \mid }{ \mid \mid h \mid \mid }$$... ... but how do I proceed from here ... ?

... can I take $$T_a (h) = T_a.h$$ ... but how do I justify this?Hope someone can help ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • McInerney - Definition 3.1.1.png
    McInerney - Definition 3.1.1.png
    7.5 KB · Views: 132
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
f(x)=(2x,3x+1) so f(a+h)=(2a+2h,3a+1+3h)=(2a,3a+1)+(2h,3h)=f(a)+Ta(h). Where Ta is a linear transformation which satisfies the limit zero.
If you consider the example f(x)=(x2,3x+1) then f(a+h)=(a2+2ah+h2,3a+1+3h)
so f(a+h)=(a2,3a+1)+(2ah,3h)+(h2,0)
f(a+h)=f(a)+Ta(h)+S(h). Where Ta(h)=(2ah,3h) is a linear transformation and
$\lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\parallel f(a+h)-f(a)-T_a(h) \parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}=\lim_{h \to 0} \frac{\parallel S(h) \parallel}{\parallel h \parallel}=0$
 
I am confused by the notation [math]T_a(h)[/math]. From what was said before, we have a "linear transformation $T_a$ from R^n\to R^n". There is no dependence of "h" Was that just T_a times h?

. If "T_a(h)" is simply T_a times h, we can factor out ||h||: \frac{||(2h, 3h)- T_ah||}{||h||}= \frac{||h||||(2, 3)- T_a||}{||h||}= (2, 3)- T_a= 0 so T_a= (2, 3).
 
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
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K