Partial Derivative Homework: Find ∂w/∂z and ∂^2w/∂y∂z

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves finding the partial derivatives ∂w/∂z and ∂²w/∂y∂z for a function w defined implicitly by F(x, y, z, w) = 0. The context is within the subject area of multivariable calculus, specifically focusing on implicit differentiation and the application of the chain rule.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of implicit differentiation and the chain rule, with some attempting to derive the formulas for the partial derivatives. Questions arise regarding the correct application of differentiation techniques, such as the product rule and the implications of holding certain variables constant.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants sharing their attempts and reasoning. Some have successfully found ∂w/∂z but express uncertainty about deriving ∂²w/∂y∂z. There is a mix of interpretations regarding the differentiation process, and guidance is being offered on the application of the chain rule and the treatment of variables.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the assumptions made about the variables involved, particularly concerning which variables are held constant during differentiation. Some participants mention the need for clarity on the use of the chain rule in this context.

Panphobia
Messages
435
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


If w = w(x, y, z) is given implicitly by F(x, y, z, w) = 0, find a formula
for both ∂w/∂z and ∂^2w/∂y∂z . You may assume that each function is sufficiently
differentiable and anything you divide by during the process of your
solution is non-zero.

The Attempt at a Solution


I know in class, my professor showed us how to implicitly differentiate using this method where if y = y(x) and F(x,y) = 0, you can do dF/dx = ∂F/∂x + ∂F/∂y*dy/dx = 0 and dy/dx = -(∂F/∂x)/(∂F/∂y),
Is this the kind of formula my professor wants us to find?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You have to use the chain rule..
 
[itex]0 = \frac{\partial F}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial z} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial y} \frac{\partial y}{\partial z} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial z} \frac{\partial z}{\partial z} + \hspace{1 mm}...[/itex]
 
Last edited:
Yea I got ∂w/∂z, but I have no idea how to get the other one, do I do ∂/∂y(∂w/∂z)?
 
Panphobia said:
Yea I got ∂w/∂z, but I have no idea how to get the other one, do I do ∂/∂y(∂w/∂z)?
Yes
 
I am not sure what ∂/∂y(∂w/∂x*∂x/∂z) would be, would it just be, d^2w/∂x∂y * ∂^2x/∂z∂y?
 
Show us what you got for ##\partial w/\partial z##, and then we can discuss what to do next.

Chet
 
Panphobia said:
I am not sure what ∂/∂y(∂w/∂x*∂x/∂z) would be, would it just be, d^2w/∂x∂y * ∂^2x/∂z∂y?
I don't think so, I believe you'll need to apply the product rule to the expression that you used to get your first answer..
 
0 = ∂F/∂x + ∂F/∂y + ∂F/∂z + ∂F/∂w*∂w/∂z

∂w/∂z = -(∂F/∂x + ∂F/∂y + ∂F/∂z)/∂F/∂w

Looks like I might needs quotient rule.
 
  • #10
Panphobia said:
0 = ∂F/∂x + ∂F/∂y + ∂F/∂z + ∂F/∂w*∂w/∂z

∂w/∂z = -(∂F/∂x + ∂F/∂y + ∂F/∂z)/∂F/∂w

Looks like I might needs quotient rule.
It looks like it needs more than just that. This result is incorrect.

Chet
 
  • #11
Look at post number 3.
Usually it is safe to assume that ##\partial x / \partial z =0##.
 
  • #12
Especially if x is one of the parameters that is being held constant.
 
  • #13
I don't know what to do at all, I am doing exactly what my prof said to do, make a tree, with F at the top then branch out the different variables then branch out w since it is a function of x,y,z. What exactly did I do wrong in my answer?
 
  • #14
Panphobia said:
I don't know what to do at all, I am doing exactly what my prof said to do, make a tree, with F at the top then branch out the different variables then branch out w since it is a function of x,y,z. What exactly did I do wrong in my answer?
I think that you just failed to realize that:
[itex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial x} * 0 = 0[/itex]...there are some terms in your answer that should not be there...
 
  • #15
Panphobia said:
0 = ∂F/∂x + ∂F/∂y + ∂F/∂z + ∂F/∂w*∂w/∂z

∂w/∂z = -(∂F/∂x + ∂F/∂y + ∂F/∂z)/∂F/∂w
The first three terms of the original differentiation are missing factors. Presumably what you want is
$$
0=\frac{\partial F}{\partial z}=
\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}+
\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}+
\frac{\partial F}{\partial z}\frac{\partial z}{\partial z}
+
\frac{\partial F}{\partial w}\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}$$
Then use the fact that
$$\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}=
\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}=0$$
and
$$\frac{\partial z}{\partial z}=1$$
 
  • #16
Why are you multiplying them by ∂x/∂z and ∂y/∂z? If you don't mind me asking, I was never taught you had to do that, well maybe I was but I don't remember, I am looking through my notes and it wasn't mentioned. Like I understand with ∂F/∂w, but not the others.
 
  • #17
Panphobia said:
Why are you multiplying them by ∂x/∂z and ∂y/∂z? If you don't mind me asking, I was never taught you had to do that, well maybe I was but I don't remember, I am looking through my notes and it wasn't mentioned. Like I understand with ∂F/∂w, but not the others.
It is because you are required to use the chain rule, you are differentiating a composite function of more than one variable..
 
  • #18
Maybe a (somewhat) unrelated example may clear things up:
Suppose you have a function [itex]z = f(x,y)[/itex] where [itex]x = g(s,t)[/itex] and [itex]y=h(s,t)[/itex]. If you want to find the derivative of z with respect to s (a similar situation to the problem you are trying to solve) then you would use the chain rule as follows:
[itex]\frac{\partial z}{\partial s} = \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} \frac{\partial x}{\partial s} + \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \frac{\partial y}{\partial s}[/itex]
 
  • #19
Oh alright I think I understand looking at the definition, but in class all the examples were like where x,y,z where all functions of t, or s and t, and I never realized that if they aren't a function of anything you still have to use chain rule on it.
 
  • #20
You have to use the chain rule because you have:
[itex]w = f(x,y,z)[/itex] given implicitly by [itex]F(x,y,z,w) = 0[/itex]. So you essentially have [itex]F(x,y,z, f(x,y,z)) = 0[/itex]. Which is a composite function.
 
  • #21
The difference between curly and straight 'd's is a bit tricky in that one. What I wrote above doesn't get them correct because ##\frac{\partial F}{\partial z}## implies that ##w##, as well as ##x,y##, is kept constant, which prevents us from using the fourth term in the way we want. So I think we need to write it as a total derivative:

$$
0=\frac{dF}{dz}=
\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\frac{dx}{dz}+
\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\frac{dy}{dz}+
\frac{\partial F}{\partial z}\frac{dz}{dz}
+
\frac{\partial F}{\partial w}\frac{dw}{dz}$$

This then gives us an answer for ##\frac{dw}{dz}## rather than ##\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}##.

But that's OK because

$$\frac{dw}{dz}=
\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\frac{dx}{dz}+
\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}\frac{dy}{dz}+
\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}\frac{dz}{dz}=0+0+1\times\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}$$
 
  • #22
Let's take a step back. Are you familiar with the following?
[tex]dF=\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\right)_{y,z,w}dx+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\right)_{x,z,w}dy+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial z}\right)_{x,y,w}dz+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial w}\right)_{x,y,z}dw[/tex]
But, since F is zero, dF = 0, so
[tex]\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}\right)dx+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}\right)dy+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial z}\right)dz+\left(\frac{\partial F}{\partial w}\right)dw=0[/tex]
So,
[tex]dw=-\frac{\partial F/\partial x}{\partial F/\partial w}dx-\frac{\partial F/\partial y}{\partial F/\partial w}dy-\frac{\partial F/\partial z}{\partial F/\partial w}dz[/tex]

Compare this term for term with
[tex]dw=\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\right)dx+\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}\right)dy+\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}\right)dz[/tex]

Chet
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K