1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min 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!

Product Rule

  1. Jun 30, 2007 #1
    We covered the product rule in maths last lecture, and as part of the derivation of it, we got this line:

    [tex]\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}=\frac{u \partial v}{\partial x} + \frac{v \partial u}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial u \partial v}{\partial x}[/tex]

    And were told that as [tex]x \rightarrow 0[/tex]

    [tex]\frac{\partial u \partial v}{\partial x}[/tex] just "goes away".

    Can anyone explain why this is so? :confused:

    (edit: quite pleased with my first attempt at tex :D )
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 30, 2007 #2

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I think you mean:
    [tex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/tex], instead of [tex]\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}[/tex]
    The [tex]\partial[/tex] one is used to denote partial derivative, the one you are working with in muti-variable calculus.

    Are you sure it's not dx ~~> 0?

    Ok, you can think like this:
    [tex]\frac{du dv}{dx} = \frac{du}{dx} dv = u'_x dv[/tex]

    du/dx is the derivative of u, with respect to x, is a finite number, multiply with dv, a very very small number (since dv also tends to 0, as dx tends to 0.). So the whole thing should be 0. So, it just "go away". :)

    Can you get it? :)
     
  4. Jun 30, 2007 #3
    darn, yea, swap all [tex]\partial[/tex] for [tex]\delta[/tex] etc... sorry. :blushing:

    Umm, not sure. After re-reading my notes, it says "Take limits as x -> 0".
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2007
  5. Jun 30, 2007 #4

    Mute

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm not sure how your professor derived the product rule, so I don't know how that cross-term comes about in your derivation there. Starting from the definition of the derivative and using the "add zero" trick, the proof is easy:

    [tex]\left[f(x)g(x)\right]' = \lim_{h\rightarrow 0}~\frac{f(x+h)g(x + h) - f(x)g(x)}{h}[/tex]

    Then introduce the terms [tex]g(x+h)f(x) - f(x)g(x+h)[/tex] in the numerator to get (limit notation left out):

    [tex]\frac{f(x+h)g(x+h) - f(x)g(x+h)}{h} + \frac{g(x+h)f(x) - g(x)f(x)}{h}[/tex]

    And factoring out the common terms in each term:

    [tex]g(x+h)\frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}{h} + f(x)\frac{g(x+h)-g(x)}{h}[/tex]

    As h -> 0, the fractions tend to derivatives and g(x+h) tends to g(x) (since the limit of a product is the product of the limits)

    So, [tex]\left[f(x)g(x)\right]' = g(x)f'(x) + f(x)g'(x)[/tex]
     
  6. Jun 30, 2007 #5

    HallsofIvy

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    I would consider that extremely bad notation! Neither "x" nor "dx" "goes to 0". Certainly x doesn't and if you are using "dx" as a differential, then it doesn't "go to 0"- it is and remains an infinitesmal. With [itex]\delta x[/itex] rather than [itex]\partial x[/itex] or dx it makes a little more sense but you didn't say how y is a function of u and v (nor what u and v mean) so I can't tell how you would get [itex](\delta u \delta v)/\delta x[/itex]. Roughly speaking it is the fact that there are two [itex]\delta[/itex]'s in the numerator to only one in the denominator that makes it go to 0.
     
  7. Jul 1, 2007 #6
    I thought [tex]x \rightarrow 0[/tex] means "x tends to 0", which means x is infinitly small, it doesn't mean that x IS 0?

    I know I miseed alot of stuff out, hence why I just said the line was just part of it...



    We started with a curve, equation y=u.v, with two points, P and Q. The gradient between them is [tex]\delta y / \delta x[/tex].

    The coordinates:

    [tex]P=(x,u.v)[/tex]

    [tex]Q=(x+ \delta x , (u+ \delta u)(v + \delta v))[/tex]

    So:

    [tex]\delta y = (u+ \delta u)(v+ \delta v)-(uv)[/tex], where [tex](u+ \delta u)(v+ \delta v)[/tex] is the value of the curve at Q and [tex](uv)[/tex] is the vale of the curve at P.

    [tex]\delta y=v \delta u + u \delta v + \delta u \delta v+ uv - uv[/tex]

    [tex]\frac{\delta y}{\delta x} = u \frac{\delta v}{\delta x} + v \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta v \delta u}{\delta x}[/tex]

    Now, apparently, "Take limits as [tex]x \rightarrow 0[/tex]"

    [tex]\Rightarrow \frac{\delta y}{\delta x} = u \frac{\delta v}{\delta x} + v \frac{\delta u}{\delta x}[/tex]
     
  8. Jul 1, 2007 #7

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Could you perhaps explain it more rigorously? Because otherwise [tex]\int^b_a f(x) dx[/tex] would equal 0..for any bounds..or function...
     
  9. Jul 1, 2007 #8

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Well, let y = uv, where u, and v are functions of x, and everywhere differentiable.
    So: [tex]\delta y = (u + \delta u) (v + \delta v) - uv = u \delta v + v \delta u + \delta u \delta v[/tex]
    Divide both sides by [tex]\delta x[/tex], we obtain:

    [tex]\frac{\delta y}{\delta x} = u \frac{\delta v}{\delta x} + v \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta u \delta v}{\delta x} = u \frac{\delta v}{\delta x} + v \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} \delta v[/tex]

    Now, take the limit as [tex]\delta x \rightarrow 0[/tex], we have:

    [tex]y'(x) = \lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \frac{\delta y}{\delta x} = \lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \left( u \frac{\delta v}{\delta x} + v \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} \delta v \right)[/tex], since, u and v are differentiable, [tex]\lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} = u'(x)[/tex], [tex]\lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \frac{\delta v}{\delta x} = v'(x)[/tex], both are finite. So we have:

    [tex]y'(x) = \lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \frac{\delta y}{\delta x} = \lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \left( u \frac{\delta v}{\delta x} + v \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} + \frac{\delta u}{\delta x} \delta v \right) = u(x)v'(x) + u'(x)v(x) + u'(x) \lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \delta v[/tex]

    Since v is continuous, so, as [tex]\delta x \rightarrow 0[/tex], we also have: [tex]\delta v \rightarrow 0[/tex], so:

    [tex]y'(x) = \lim_{\delta x \rightarrow 0} \frac{\delta y}{\delta x} = ... = u(x)v'(x) + u'(x)v(x) + u'(x) 0 = u(x)v'(x) + u'(x)v(x)[/tex]

    Well, that's how I understand it.

    I did mistype in the previous post, all dx, dy, du, or dv should be [tex]\delta x[/tex], [tex]\delta y[/tex], [tex]\delta u[/tex], and [tex]\delta v[/tex]. Sorry for the confusion. :blushing: :redface: :)
     
    Last edited: Jul 1, 2007
  10. Jul 2, 2007 #9

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Ok I seem to be able to understand that, your reasoning is that a finite value ( u'(x)) multiplied by an infinitesimal that is approaching zero, must also be zero. However, wouldn't that mean that when we take the integral [tex]\int^b_a f(x) dx[/tex] We are summing up an infinite number of slices between b and a, each valued f(x) dx, as dx approaches zero? By the previous logic every integral is zero :(
     
  11. Jul 2, 2007 #10

    matt grime

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    it does

    it doesn't. That phrase is meaningless.

    correct - one cannot just insert x=0 into an object whose limit you're taking - that negates the whole point of taking limits in the first place


    That is not the derivative. For a given [itex]\delta y /\delta x[/itex] (note you use itex and not tex for inline tags) it is the slope of a chord, as you let [itex]delta x[/itex] tend to zero it will (if the function is differentiable) converge to the gradient.


    Two things - that is an horrendous abuse of an equals sign. A problem that infests lower level mathematics teaching. It is true _approximately_.
    Secondly, that should read as [itex]\delta x[/itex] tends to 0, not x. Then it is correct. Remember that [itex]\delta u[/itex] is approximately [itex]\delta x .du/dx[/itex], similarly for v, thus the cross term is approximately

    [tex] \delta x \frac{du}{dx}\frac{dv}{dx}[/tex]

    and does indeed tend to zero as [itex]\delta x[/itex] tends to 0
     
  12. Jul 2, 2007 #11

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Nope. You should note that it's the sum of an infinite numbers of strips.

    Say, if you sum (1/n), n times, as n increases without bound, what would you get?

    [tex]\lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n \times \frac{1}{n} = ?[/tex]

    Would it be 0? :smile:
     
    Last edited: Jul 2, 2007
  13. Jul 2, 2007 #12

    Gib Z

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I'm sorry, i do have lapses of idiocy :) Even wrote up the keyword and didn't realise it lol, thanks !
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Product Rule
  1. Proving the Product Rule (Replies: 16)

Loading...