Proving the reciprocal relation between partial derivatives

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on proving the reciprocal relationship between partial derivatives when three variables x, y, and z are constrained by the equation F(x, y, z) = constant. It is established that only two variables can be independent due to this constraint, leading to the derivation of the relationship between the partial derivatives. The implicit function theorem is highlighted as a more straightforward approach, allowing for the expression of one variable in terms of the others. By applying the chain rule, the reciprocity of the partial derivatives is demonstrated, resulting in the relationship that connects the derivatives of all three variables. The conversation emphasizes the importance of clarity and rigor in mathematical proofs.
"Don't panic!"
Messages
600
Reaction score
8
If three variables x,y and z are related via some condition that can be expressed as $$F(x,y,z)=constant$$ then the partial derivatives of the functions are reciprocal, e.g. $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}=\frac{1}{\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}}$$ Is the correct way to prove this the following.

As x,y and z are related by F(x,y,z)=constant, at most only two of the variables can be independent (as the third can be expressed in terms of the other two). Consider the differentials $$dx=\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}dz$$ $$dy=\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}dz$$
Substituting the second expression into the first gives $$dx=\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}dz\right)+\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}dz \\ \Rightarrow\;\;\left(1-\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}\right)dx=\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}+\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}\right)dz$$

Now, we choose x and z to be the independent variables, and as such, for this equality to be true \forall\; x,z it must be that the terms in the brackets vanish identically. We see then, from the left-hand side of the equality, that $$\left(1-\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}\right)=0\;\;\Rightarrow\;\;\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}=\frac{1}{\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}}$$ and from the right-hand side $$\left(\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}+\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}\right)=0\;\;\Rightarrow\;\;\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}=-\frac{\partial x}{\partial z}$$ and hence together this gives the relation $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial z}\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}=-1.$$
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes fsystem25
You should just use implicit function theorem here. You calculations are too complicated, and I do not see an easy way to justify them. In particular the phrase "at most only two of the variables can be independent" is too vague.

To be rigorous one should work in terms of functions and not variables.

The implicit function theorem gives you that if at some point ##F_x(x,y,z)\ne 0## then in a neighborhood of this point ##x## can be expressed in terms of ##y## and ##z##. Writing $$F(x(y,z),y,z)=C$$ and taking partial with respect to ##y## you get using chain rule that
$$F_x \frac{\partial x}{\partial y} + F_y =0,$$ so $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial y} = - F_y/F_x$$ Similarly $$\frac{\partial y}{\partial x} = - F_x/F_y,$$ and you get reciprocity. Your last identity also can be easily obtained this way (it holds when all 3 partials ##F_x##, ##F_y## and ##F_z## are non-zero).
 
  • Like
Likes fsystem25
Relativistic Momentum, Mass, and Energy Momentum and mass (...), the classic equations for conserving momentum and energy are not adequate for the analysis of high-speed collisions. (...) The momentum of a particle moving with velocity ##v## is given by $$p=\cfrac{mv}{\sqrt{1-(v^2/c^2)}}\qquad{R-10}$$ ENERGY In relativistic mechanics, as in classic mechanics, the net force on a particle is equal to the time rate of change of the momentum of the particle. Considering one-dimensional...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K