B Question about the definition of a partial derivative

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the definition and application of partial derivatives in thermodynamics, specifically the notation $$ \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right)_P $$, which indicates the partial derivative of volume (V) with respect to temperature (T) while pressure (P) is held constant. It is clarified that this notation is essential because V can depend on multiple variables, and specifying which variables are held constant is crucial for accurate calculations. The conversation highlights that if variables are not independent, the results of partial derivatives can differ significantly, emphasizing the importance of clear definitions in both mathematics and physics. The need for precision in notation is underscored to avoid confusion, particularly for students learning these concepts. Overall, the discussion illustrates the complexities of applying calculus in physical contexts and the necessity of clear communication regarding variable dependencies.
lerus
Messages
25
Reaction score
4
I just started to study thermodynamics and very often I see formulas like this:
$$ \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right)_P $$
explanation of this formula is something similar to:
partial derivative of ##V## with respect to ##T## while ##P## is constant.
But as far as I remember partial derivative is always calculated when all variables except one (##T## in our case) are constant.

Is it correct that:
$$ \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right)_P $$
the same as
$$ \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right) $$

Thank you

(∂V∂T)P
 
Science news on Phys.org
lerus said:
Is it correct that:
$$ \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right)_P $$
the same as
$$ \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right) $$
Yes, BUT only if ##V(T,P)##.

Since the physical quantity ##V## can be seen as
different functions of different pairs of independent variables,
it's best in thermodynamics to be explicit about what is being held constant.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman and topsquark
Thank you for your reply
For instance, if we have function ## V \left( T, P, X \right) ##

is ## \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right)_P \equiv \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right) ##

Thank you.
 
If you don't specify what ##V## depends on and what is held fixed,
I can't compute any partial derivatives.
 
  • Like
  • Skeptical
Likes vanhees71 and PeroK
Thank you for reply.
For instance, we have function ## V \left( T, P, X \right) ##
When we calculate ## \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right) ##
we change ##T## and keep ##P## and ##X## constant
When we calculate ## \left( \frac {\partial V} {\partial T} \right)_P ## we do the same
Then why do we need ##_P## ?

Thank you
 
From Schroeder's Thermal Physics p. 31
Problem 1.45. As an illustration of why it matters which variables you hold fixed
when taking partial derivatives, consider the following mathematical example.
Let ##w = xy## and ##x = yz##.
(a) Write ##w## purely in terms of ##x## and ##z##, and then purely in terms of ##y## and ##z##.

(b) Compute the partial derivatives
$$\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\right)_y \qquad\mbox{and}\qquad \left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\right)_z$$
and show that they are not equal.
(Hint: To compute ##\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\right)_y## use a formula for ##w## in terms of ##x## and ##y##, not ##z## .
Similarly, compute ##\left(\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}\right)_z## from a formula for ##w## in terms of only ##x## and ##z##.)

(c) Compute the other four partial derivatives
(two each with respect to ##y## and ##z##),
and show that it matters which variable is held fixed.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman, vanhees71, jasonRF and 2 others
Thanks a lot for example,
I think I understand it better now
If variables ##x, y, z## were independent then ## \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x} \right)_y \equiv \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x} \right) _z##
but if ##x, y, z## are not independent, then
## \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x}\right)_y \neq \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x}\right)_z##

Thank you
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
lerus said:
Thanks a lot for example,
I think I understand it better now
If variables ##x, y, z## were independent then ## \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x} \right)_y \equiv \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x} \right) _z##
but if ##x, y, z## are not independent, then
## \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x}\right)_y \neq \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x}\right)_z##

Thank you
Well, the root of the problem is general sloppiness in using the same symbol for different functions. The more mathematically precise solution, in this example, would be to define:
$$w(x, y) = xy, \ \text{and} \ \bar w(y, z) = y^2z$$And then it's clear what function is being differentiated.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman, vanhees71 and jasonRF
PS and then it's obvious and trivial that not all functions have the same partial derivatives!
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman and vanhees71
  • #10
Possibly interesting reading:
https://bridge.math.oregonstate.edu/papers/bridge.pdf
Bridging the Gap between Mathematics and the Physical Sciences
Tevian Dray and Corinne Manogue

Dray & Manogue said:
2 An Example

Here’s our favorite example: Suppose ##T(x, y) = k(x^2 + y^2 )##.
What is ##T(r, θ)##?
We often ask this question of mathematicians and other scientists.
Some mathematicians say “##k(r^2 + θ^2 )##”. Many mathematicians refuse to answer, claiming that the question is ambiguous. Everyone else, including some mathematicians, says “##kr^2##”. One colleague, who holds a split appointment in mathematics and physics, simply laughed, then asked which hat he should wear when answering the question. What’s going on here?
...

And yes, a physicist really will write ##T(x, y) = k(x^2 + y^2)## for, say, the temperature on a
rectangular metal slab, and ##T(r, θ) = kr^2## for the same temperature in polar coordinates,
even though the mathematician would argue that the symbol ##T## is being used for two different
functions. This is not sloppy mathematics on the part of the physicist; it’s a different language.
##T## is the temperature, a physical quantity which is a function of position;
the letters which follow merely indicate which coordinate system one is using to label the position.
This can be rigorously translated into the differential geometer’s notion of a scalar field,
or phrased more informally as:

Science is about physical quantities, not about functions.

So not only do other scientists speak a different language, they use the same vocabulary!
...
 
  • Like
Likes vanhees71
  • #11
robphy said:
Possibly interesting reading:
https://bridge.math.oregonstate.edu/papers/bridge.pdf
Bridging the Gap between Mathematics and the Physical Sciences
Tevian Dray and Corinne Manogue
I feel that needs that to be made clear for the student's benefit. Ultimately, you may know when you mean by ##T## in every context, but it's a source of confusion if the student is left to guess what you mean.

In this case, that ##T## is a physical quantity with different functional identities should be made clear from the outset. You can't do physics without calculus and calculus is carried out on functions. You need both physical quantities and functions.

Another good example is the "total" derivative. Physics texts often make a big play about the difference between a total derivative and a partial derivative. The total derivative, however, is simply the usual derivative of a plain old single-variable function.

The danger is that you end up with a sort of mystique about these things. Whereas, if the student can ultimately reduce things to the basics of calculus, then he/she is able to disentangle things for themselves and avoid misconceptions.
 
  • Like
Likes jbergman and vanhees71
  • #12
lerus said:
Thanks a lot for example,
I think I understand it better now
If variables ##x, y, z## were independent then ## \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x} \right)_y \equiv \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x} \right) _z##
but if ##x, y, z## are not independent, then
## \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x}\right)_y \neq \left( \frac {\partial w} {\partial x}\right)_z##

Thank you
If you have the time and inclination, you may be interested in my insight on demystifying the chain rule(!):

https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/demystifying-chain-rule-calculus/
 
  • Like
Likes lerus
  • #13
PeroK said:
I feel that needs that to be made clear for the student's benefit. Ultimately, you may know when you mean by ##T## in every context, but it's a source of confusion if the student is left to guess what you mean.
I'd also say the mathematicians are here too soft. It's indeed a very bad habit of physicists to use the same symbol for different functions, distinguishing the functions only by the naming of the arguments. This can lead to serious confusion. What drives my nuts, e.g., is to use the same symbol for a function and its Fourier transform.

In thermodynamics, it's on the other hand a somewhat different story, because the various quantities have a fixed meaning, no matter as functions of which other variables you use them. Then it's, of course, important to list all (!) the independent variables to be held fixed when differenting with respect to the only other independent variable. So there is some justification for this quite confusing notation, although I think it contributes a lot to the difficulties everybody has with thermodynamics.
PeroK said:
In this case, that ##T## is a physical quantity with different functional identities should be made clear from the outset. You can't do physics without calculus and calculus is carried out on functions. You need both physical quantities and functions.

Another good example is the "total" derivative. Physics texts often make a big play about the difference between a total derivative and a partial derivative. The total derivative, however, is simply the usual derivative of a plain old single-variable function.

The danger is that you end up with a sort of mystique about these things. Whereas, if the student can ultimately reduce things to the basics of calculus, then he/she is able to disentangle things for themselves and avoid misconceptions.
I couldn't agree more ;-).
 
  • Like
Likes PeroK
  • #14
Back
Top