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!

I Proper notation in chain rule

  1. Jun 18, 2016 #1
    Is the chain rule below wrong?
    Screen Shot 2016-06-19 at 12.03.26 am.png

    What I propose is as follows:

    Given that ##x_i=x_i(u_1, u_2, ..., u_m)##. If we define the function ##g## such that ##g(u_1, u_2, ..., u_m)=f(x_1, x_2, ..., x_n)##, then

    ##\frac{\partial g}{\partial u_j}=\sum_{i=1}^n\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\frac{\partial x_i}{\partial u_j}##.

    This version of chain rule is what is being used, it seems, in the example below when the answer given replaces ##f## with ##g## in the last line.

    A related question is as follows:

    Consider the function ##V(r)=\frac{1}{3}\pi r^2h##, where ##h## is a constant. Suppose ##r## is a function of ##t## such that ##r(t)=at^2##, where ##a## is a constant.

    What do we call the function after substituting ##r## with ##at^2##, which gives ##\frac{1}{3}\pi a^2t^4h##?

    I guess we have to give it a different name: ##W(t)=\frac{1}{3}\pi a^2t^4h##, because ##V(t)## would give ##V(t)=\frac{1}{3}\pi t^2h##. Then ##\frac{\partial V(t)}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r}##. Am I right?

    If we still call it ##V## as follows: ##V(t) = \frac 1 3 \pi a^2 t^4 h##, we will run into a problem.

    Since ##V(r)=\frac{1}{3}\pi r^2h##, when ##r=2##, we would write ##V(2)=\frac{1}{3}\pi\,2^2\,h##. But if we write ##V(t)=\frac{1}{3}\pi a^2t^4h##, when ##t=2##, we have ##V(2)=\frac{1}{3}\pi a^2\,2^4\,h##. Then ##V(2)\neq V(2)##.

    Screen Shot 2016-06-19 at 12.04.05 am.png

    Screen Shot 2016-06-19 at 12.04.19 am.png
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2016
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 18, 2016 #2
    About the first question I think the answer is that it is correct (the formula 5.17), but about
    The correct answer is the same, this one
    ##\frac{\partial V(t)}{\partial t}=\frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r}\frac{\partial r}{\partial t}##
    I did not check the last equation but I think it is not too difficult
     
  4. Jun 18, 2016 #3

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    You still call it V, but now instead of V being a function of r, it's a function of t. You could refer to it as ##V(t) = \frac 1 3 \pi a^2 t^4 h##, or you could refer to it as ##V(r(t))##
    Partials really don't have a place here. The first definition of V has it as a function of r alone (h is a constant, you said), so writing ##\frac{\partial V(r)}{\partial r}## is an overcomplication. ##\frac{d V(r)}{dr}## is appropriate.

    Now, since r is a function of t alone, then you can refer to ##\frac{d V}{dt}##, and can calculate it using the chain rule for functions of a single variable.
     
  5. Jun 18, 2016 #4
    Since ##V(r)=\frac{1}{3}\pi r^2h##, when ##r=2##, we would write ##V(2)=\frac{1}{3}\pi\,2^2\,h##. But if we write ##V(t)=\frac{1}{3}\pi a^2t^4h##, when ##t=2##, we have ##V(2)=\frac{1}{3}\pi a^2\,2^4\,h##. Then ##V(2)\neq V(2)##.
     
  6. Jun 18, 2016 #5

    Ssnow

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think it is understood also that you can express ##u_i=u_i(x_{1},\ldots,x_{n})##...
     
  7. Jun 18, 2016 #6

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    No, that's not right. You're comparing apples and oranges. If r = 2, then V(2) = ##\frac{1}{3}\pi r^2h = \frac{1}{3}\pi 2^2h = \frac{4}{3}\pi h##. It's understood here that V(2) means that you evaluate things for r = 2.
    V(r(2)) = V(2), but when r = 2 you're going to get a different value of V than for t = 2.

    If r = 2, then ##t = \pm \sqrt{\frac 2 a}##, so V(r = 2) using the first formula is exactly equal to V(##t = \pm \sqrt{\frac 2 a}##) using the second formula.

    This is basic function composition.
     
  8. Jun 18, 2016 #7
    So ##V(2)## could either mean ##V(r=2)## or ##V(t=2)##? And there is no universally accepted notation? It seems like this ambiguity can be avoided if we use good notations.

    ( ##V(r=2)## and ##V(t=2)## are themselves not good notations.)
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2016
  9. Jun 18, 2016 #8

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    It should be clear from the context in which this is written.
    Yes, of course.
    If you write ##V(r) = \frac{1}{3}\pi r^2h##, and then also write ##V(t) = \frac{1}{3}\pi (at^2)^2h## (as you have done here), then writing V(2) is ambiguous. Does 2 represent a value of r or is it a value of t?

    The first formulation of V above could be written as ##V(r(t)) = \frac{1}{3}\pi (r(t))^2h##, where ##r(t) = at^2##. That would clear up any ambiguity.
     
  10. Jun 18, 2016 #9
    If ##V## is a function that maps ##r## to ##\frac{1}{3}\pi r^2h##, then shouldn't it map ##t## to ##\frac{1}{3}\pi t^2h##? Then isn't ##V(t)=\frac{1}{3}\pi t^2h##?

    This is the main reason why I believe we shouldn't write ##V(r(t))## as ##V(t)##. We should name it differently, for example, as ##W(t)##. Then ##V(2)## means ##r=2## and ##W(2)## means ##t=2##.
     
  11. Jun 18, 2016 #10

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    Yes, and V maps x to ##\frac{1}{3}\pi x^2h##, and it maps z to ##\frac{1}{3}\pi z^2h##, but so what?

    What you seem to be forgetting is that there is a function composition going on, with V being a function of r, and r being a function of t. In an abuse of notation, we have V = V(r(t))
    For a given value of t, find r(t), and then find V(r(t)). So if t = 2, r(2) = 4a, and V(r(2)) = ##\frac 4 3 \pi h##
    There's no need to give it a different name if you understand function composition.
     
  12. Jun 18, 2016 #11

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    I don't know why you're using partial derivatives. As this thread is about the chain rule, and your example is the composition of two functions of one variable, ordinary derivatives suffice. Given V in terms of r and r in terms of t, ##V'(t_0) = V'(r(t_0))*r'(t_0)##, or ##V'(t_0) = \left.\frac{dV}{dr}\right |_{r(t_0)} \left.\frac{dr}{dt} \right|_{t_0}##
     
  13. Jun 18, 2016 #12
    Consider ##z## to be a function of ##y##, which is itself a function of ##x##. The chain rule may be written as ##\frac{dz}{dx}=\frac{dz}{dy}\frac{dy}{dx}##.

    The ##z## on the LHS means ##z(y(x))##, which is equivalent to ##(z\circ y)(x)##, whereas the ##z## on the RHS means ##z(y)##. So strictly speaking, they are not the same, right? ##(z\circ y\neq z)##
     
  14. Jun 18, 2016 #13

    Mark44

    Staff: Mentor

    Sure. Here the context is that on the left side, we're talking about a map from x value to z values, and on the right side, the left derivative refers to a map from y values to z values. Certainly the two map formulas are different.
    Some textbooks use a different function name. If x = g(t), and y = f(x), then they will define z = h(t) = f(g(t)). My point was that, as long as the context was understood, it wasn't necessary to introduce another function. If you have defined V in terms of r, then it's understood that V(2) means to evaluate V at r = 2. But if there is uncertainty whether you mean V as a function r or V as a function of t (with different formulas), then it's not clear what V(2) is supposed to mean.
     
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: Proper notation in chain rule
  1. Chain Rule (Replies: 65)

  2. What is the chain rule (Replies: 0)

Loading...