Partial Derivatives and Implicit Function Thm.

qspeechc
Messages
839
Reaction score
15
Hi.

So I'm reading a physics book and I come across the following passage:

Let p=(p_1,p_2,...,p_n) and q=(q_1,q_2,...,q_n) and the system of n algebraic equations
g_r(p,q)=0, \quad r\in \{1,2,...,n\}
can be solved with respect to the p_i in the form p_i=\phi _i(q) for i\in \{1,2,...,n\}
Then we have
\frac{d}{dq_h}g_r(\phi ,q)=0
where \phi =(\phi _1,...,\phi _n). If we denote G_r(q)=g_r(\phi ,q) then the last relation gives

0=\frac{\partial}{\partial q_h}G_s = \Big[\frac{\partial g_s}{\partial q_h} + \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\partial g_s}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial \phi _i}{\partial q_h} \Big]_{p=\phi (q)}

Ok, up to this point I'm fairly confident I'm following along. But then they do the following:

Therefore the partial derivatives can be expressed in the form
\frac{\partial g_s}{\partial q_h} = \sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\partial g_s}{\partial p_i}\frac{\partial (p_i-\phi _i)}{\partial q_h}

and I have no idea where this comes from. I am guessing here that p_i=\phi _i(q) is only in some sufficiently small region and not the entire space, since they do not explicitly say anything in this regard, so that p_i-\phi _i is not identically zero on the whole space, so I do not know where the above comes from. This is probably something really simple and I'm just being stupid, but any help is greatly appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Anyone :frown:
Please?
 
What is the implication of

\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial q_h}\,=\,0
 
If
\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial q_h} = 0
then
\frac{\partial \phi _i}{\partial q_h} = 0
in the region where p_i=\phi _i, and outside this region, well, it's identically zero since p_i is not explicitly a function of the q_i's. Am I on the right track? I don't see where these train-tracks are leading.
 
Aha! Does this mean that, regardless of where we are in the space, if we have the p_i as a function of the q_i or not, the adding of the term p_i has no effect of the partial derivative because:
If we are in the region where p_i-\phi _i=0 the partial derivatives
\frac{\partial g_s}{\partial q_h} = 0
anyway, and if we are outside this region then
\frac{\partial p_i}{\partial q_h} = 0
Is this right?
 
Ok, anyone please? Even if it's just a " yea I don't get that either"...
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagorus'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top