Notation for 2nd-order mixed derivatives

kingwinner
Messages
1,266
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


According to Wikipedia and one of my calculus textbooks: (I am used to this notation)
378b7ac113c92212162a0f23c27c1175.png

But I've seen another source writing fxy=∂2f/∂x∂y=∂xyf which is totally inconsistent with the above. How come?

Which one is standard? Is the second one wrong, or is it acceptable? The second one is driving me crazy...is it ever used anywhere?


Homework Equations


N/A


The Attempt at a Solution


N/A

Thank you!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you replace f_xy in your first example with f_yx, then I'm with you. For basically all examples of interest in physics or the sciences, f_xy=f_yx. Hence, the free interchange of x and y. In mathematics there are examples of functions where f_xy is not equal to f_yx.
 
Dick said:
If you replace f_xy in your first example with f_yx, then I'm with you. For basically all examples of interest in physics or the sciences, f_xy=f_yx. Hence, the free interchange of x and y. In mathematics there are examples of functions where f_xy is not equal to f_yx.

fxy means (fx)y, no?
So I would interpret fxy as taking partial derivative w.r.t. x first and then w.r.t. y which is consistent with my calculus textbook.

However, in my studies of partial differential equations (which I would classify as math rather than science), they write fxy=∂2f/∂x∂y=∂xyf which is inconsistent with the above.
2f/∂x∂y means taking partial derivative w.r.t. y first and then w.r.t. x, but fxy to me is the opposite.

Which notation is standard in mathematics?

Thanks!
 
Last edited:
You know, I've never thought about it that hard. Wikipedia says ∂2f/∂x∂y is f_yx. I guess I'll trust them. The operator notation is clearer.
 
kingwinner said:
Which one is standard? Is the second one wrong, or is it acceptable? The second one is driving me crazy...is it ever used anywhere?
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/MixedPartialDerivative.html, for one.

What is the "correct" way to denote a similarity transformation:
QAQ^{-1} or Q^{-1}AQ

What is the "correct" way to represent a rotation by angle \theta about an axis \hat u as a quaternion:
\bmatrix \cos \theta/2 \\ \hat u \sin \theta/2\endbmatrix or \bmatrix \cos \theta/2 \\ -\hat u \sin \theta/2\endbmatrix or \bmatrix\hat u \sin \theta/2 \\ \cos \theta/2 \endbmatrix or \bmatrix -\hat u \sin \theta/2 \\ \cos \theta/2 \endbmatrix

What is the "correct" way to represent \partial/\partial y\left(\partial f/\partial x\right):
f_{xy}[/itex] or f_{yx}The correct answer is: Asking which way is the "correct" way is wrong. There are lots of cases where different nomenclatures are used in different places. I just gave three examples; there are many more. You need to recognize that sometimes there are multiple ways to write things. Sometimes the chosen nomenclature is obvious from context. Sometimes it isn't so obvious; hopefully the author of a paper describes the nomenclature. Sometimes not. Such is life.
 
Last edited:
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top