- #1
Ahmed Mehedi
- 39
- 5
- TL;DR Summary
- Partial Differentiation
1) If we have two functions C(y, r) and I(y, r) can we write: ∂C/∂I×∂I/∂r=∂C/∂r ? Can we also write ∂I/∂C=1/(∂C/∂I) ?
Thanks a lot for your kind clarification!1) yes, it's the chain rule
2) In practice you often have to deal with "good" functions and it works. If you want to be super-rigorous I think you can find some examples where it is not true, but you usually do not run into such problems in physics or engineering.
Summary:: Partial Differentiation
1) If we have two functions C(y, r) and I(y, r) can we write: ∂C/∂I×∂I/∂r=∂C/∂r ? Can we also write ∂I/∂C=1/(∂C/∂I) ?
Thanks a lot brother for your nice and concrete explanation and thanks for your time. Now, I get some insight about the problem I am facing. I have another question: In the aforementioned context is it legit to write: $$\frac{\partial I}{\partial C}=\frac{1}{\frac{\partial C}{\partial I}}$$This is not right. The chain rule for partial derivatives requires that you have the functions defined in terms of the other variables. In this case, you must imagine that you have ##C## as a function of ##I## and ##r## and then apply the multi-variable chain rule. We can take an example:
$$C(y, r) = y + r \ \ \text{and} \ \ I(y, r) = y - r \ \ \text{then} \ \ C(I, r) = I + 2r$$
Then:
$$\frac{\partial C}{\partial I}\frac{\partial I}{\partial r} = (1)(-1) = -1$$
And
$$\frac{\partial C}{\partial r} = 2$$
So, in this case $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial I}\frac{\partial I}{\partial r} \neq \frac{\partial C}{\partial r}$$ Then how does the multi-variable chain rule look like in this case? Again thanking you for your precious time.This is not right. The chain rule for partial derivatives requires that you have the functions defined in terms of the other variables. In this case, you must imagine that you have ##C## as a function of ##I## and ##r## and then apply the multi-variable chain rule. We can take an example:
$$C(y, r) = y + r \ \ \text{and} \ \ I(y, r) = y - r \ \ \text{then} \ \ C(I, r) = I + 2r$$
Then:
$$\frac{\partial C}{\partial I}\frac{\partial I}{\partial r} = (1)(-1) = -1$$
And
$$\frac{\partial C}{\partial r} = 2$$
That's not true for partial derivatives. Take polar coordinates:Thanks a lot brother for your nice and concrete explanation and thanks for your time. Now, I get some insight about the problem I am facing. I have another question: In the aforementioned context is it legit to write: $$\frac{\partial I}{\partial C}=\frac{1}{\frac{\partial C}{\partial I}}$$
Thanks a lot! Your answers are very concrete and very helpful!That's not true for partial derivatives. Take polar coordinates:
$$x = r \cos \theta, \ \ r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$$
This gives:
$$\frac{\partial x}{\partial r} = \cos \theta \ \ \text{and} \ \ \frac{\partial r}{\partial x} = \frac x r = \cos \theta$$
So, in this case $$\frac{\partial C}{\partial I}\frac{\partial I}{\partial r} \neq \frac{\partial C}{\partial r}$$ Then how does the multi-variable chain rule look like in this case?
Thanks a lot for your suggestions! Those notes are really well-written and very helpful!Might I also suggest:
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/demystifying-chain-rule-calculus/
https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/how-to-solve-second-order-partial-derivatives/
I think you have a lot of similar concerns that I had.
That's not true for partial derivatives. Take polar coordinates:
$$x = r \cos \theta, \ \ r = \sqrt{x^2 + y^2}$$
This gives:
$$\frac{\partial x}{\partial r} = \cos \theta \ \ \text{and} \ \ \frac{\partial r}{\partial x} = \frac x r = \cos \theta$$
That's a special case where you have only three variables: ##x, r, \theta##. If we fix ##\theta##, then we have effectively a single-variable function relating ##r## and ##x##. In general, you can't simply invert partial derivatives.@PeroK Thanks for correcting my wrong statements (for the first question I naively assumed that C was expressed as function of I which could not happen, as you pointed out), but I don't understand this
if ##r = \frac x {\cos \theta}## and I differentiate wrt to x keeping ##\theta## constant the relation holds. What you did is differentiating wrt to ##x## but keeping only ##y## constant. And that is a different matter
Well i though that It was implicitly assumed that you have to keep the same variables constant.