1. Limited time only! Sign up for a free 30min personal tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Partial derivative

  1. Nov 2, 2014 #1
    1. The problem statement, all variables and given/known data
    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.

    3. 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?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 2, 2014 #2
    You have to use the chain rule..
     
  4. Nov 2, 2014 #3
    [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: Nov 2, 2014
  5. Nov 2, 2014 #4
    Yea I got ∂w/∂z, but I have no idea how to get the other one, do I do ∂/∂y(∂w/∂z)?
     
  6. Nov 2, 2014 #5
    Yes
     
  7. Nov 2, 2014 #6
    I am not sure what ∂/∂y(∂w/∂x*∂x/∂z) would be, would it just be, d^2w/∂x∂y * ∂^2x/∂z∂y?
     
  8. Nov 2, 2014 #7
    Show us what you got for ##\partial w/\partial z##, and then we can discuss what to do next.

    Chet
     
  9. Nov 2, 2014 #8
    I dont think so, I believe you'll need to apply the product rule to the expression that you used to get your first answer..
     
  10. Nov 2, 2014 #9
    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.
     
  11. Nov 3, 2014 #10
    It looks like it needs more than just that. This result is incorrect.

    Chet
     
  12. Nov 3, 2014 #11

    RUber

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Look at post number 3.
    Usually it is safe to assume that ##\partial x / \partial z =0##.
     
  13. Nov 3, 2014 #12
    Especially if x is one of the parameters that is being held constant.
     
  14. Nov 3, 2014 #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?
     
  15. Nov 3, 2014 #14
    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...
     
  16. Nov 3, 2014 #15

    andrewkirk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    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
    $$\frac{\partial z}{\partial z}=1$$
     
  17. Nov 3, 2014 #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.
     
  18. Nov 3, 2014 #17
    It is because you are required to use the chain rule, you are differentiating a composite function of more than one variable..
     
  19. Nov 3, 2014 #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]
     
  20. Nov 3, 2014 #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.
     
  21. Nov 3, 2014 #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.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted



Similar Discussions: Partial derivative
  1. Partial derivative (Replies: 11)

  2. Partial derivative (Replies: 1)

  3. Partial derivative (Replies: 2)

  4. Partial derivatives (Replies: 1)

  5. The partial derivative (Replies: 2)

Loading...