Partial derivatives (question I am grading).

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the properties of a function \( f: \mathbb{R}^2 \to \mathbb{R} \) with second-order partial derivatives, specifically exploring the condition \( f_{xy} = 0 \) and its implications for the function's form. Participants are examining how to demonstrate that this condition is equivalent to \( f(x,y) = g(x) + h(y) \) without relying on integration.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests using the mean value theorem to argue that if \( f'(x) = 0 \), then \( f \) must be constant, but notes that the constant would depend on \( y \).
  • Another participant expresses uncertainty about how to proceed from the known relationships \( f_x = F(x) \) and \( f_y = G(y) \), questioning the assumption that \( F(x) = h'(x) \).
  • A different participant proposes that if \( F(x) = h'(x) \), then \( G(x,y) = f(x,y) - h(x) \) leads to \( G_x = 0 \), suggesting that \( G \) must be a function of \( y \) alone.
  • One participant mentions the fundamental theorem of calculus as a potential way to show the existence of a function \( F(x) \) such that \( F'(x) = f(x) \), and extends this to \( G(x) = F(x) + C \) under the assumption that \( f \) is continuously differentiable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of confidence in their reasoning, and there is no consensus on how to conclusively demonstrate the implications of the condition \( f_{xy} = 0 \). Multiple approaches are proposed, but the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating assumptions about the relationships between the derivatives and the forms of the functions involved, with some steps in reasoning remaining unclear or unproven.

MathematicalPhysicist
Science Advisor
Gold Member
Messages
4,662
Reaction score
372
We have a function f:R^2->R and it has partial derivative of 2nd order.
Show that [itex]f_{xy}=0 \forall (x,y)\in \mathbb{R}^2 \Leftrightarrow f(x,y)=g(x)+h(y)[/itex]

The <= is self explanatory, the => I am not sure I got the right reasoning.

I mean we know that from the above we have: [itex]f_x=F(x)[/itex] (it's a question before this one), but now besides taking an integral I don't see how to show the consequent.

Any thoughts how to show this without invoking integration?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
My first thought is the mean value theorem which states that if [itex]f'(x)=0[/itex] then [itex]f\equiv[/itex]constant., apply this to [itex]x[/itex] when [itex]y[/itex] yields [itex]\partial_{y}f\equiv[/itex]constant, but this constant will be dependent on [itex]y[/itex] and therefor is a function of [itex]y[/itex].

Get the general idea now?
 
That's basically what I have written, so I know that f_x =F(x) and f_y=G(y). But this is where I am not sure how to procceed.

I mean I know that: if F(x)=h'(x), then G(x,y)= f(x,y)-h(x) then G_x=0 and then G=g(y).

The problem is how do I know that F(x)=h'(x) I am assuming that F is of this form, aren't I?
 
I think that as you effectively have the equation [itex]f'(x)=g(x)[/itex] then you want to show that there is a function [itex]F(x)[/itex] with the property [itex]F'(x)=f(x)[/itex], and I think that this follows from a version of the fundamental theorem of calculus. By extension [itex]G(x)=F(x)+C[/itex] will also satisfy this equation. I think you can say this because [itex]f\in C^{1}[/itex] as you have [itex]f'(x)[/itex].
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
6K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K