MHB Reconciling Differences in Vector-Valued Function Derivatives

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on reconciling differences in the definitions of the derivative of vector-valued functions from two textbooks, Browder's "Mathematical Analysis" and Colley's "Vector Calculus." The key point of contention is Colley's use of norm signs around both the numerator and denominator, while Browder uses modulus signs only around h in the denominator. Participants clarify that while different notations exist, they often convey the same concept for vectors. It is noted that the double lines can have varying meanings depending on context, particularly when subscripts are involved. Understanding these notational differences is crucial for accurately interpreting vector derivatives.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am trying to reconcile apparent differences between the definitions of the derivative of a vector-valued function $$f: U \rightarrow \mathbb{R}^n$$ (where $$U \subset \mathbb{R}^m$$ ) of a vector variable from two textbooks ...

The textbooks are as follows:

Andrew Browder: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction"

and

Susan Jane Colley: "Vector Calculus" (Second Edition)Browder's definition of the derivative of f is explained in the following notes:View attachment 7464
Colley's definition is as follows:View attachment 7465My question is regarding how to reconcile the differences between these two definitions ... Colley has "length" or norm signs ( $$\lvert \lvert \cdot \rvert \rvert$$ ) around the numerator and denominator terms while Browder only has modulus signs (that is "length" or norm in his case) around h in the denominator ...

Can someone please explain or reconcile this difference ...

Peter========================================================================================*** NOTE 1 ***

Colley's Definition of the total derivative mentions df(a) ...

Colley defines df(x) as the matrix of partial derivatives of f ... as follows:View attachment 7466
Peter
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi,

For a vector function you have $$\lim_{x->0} f(x) = 0$$ if and only if $$\lim_{x->0} \Vert f(x)\Vert = 0$$
The norm is needed in the denominator since you can't divide a vector (or scalar) with a vector.

Hope this helps
David
 
Peter said:
My question is regarding how to reconcile the differences between these two definitions ... Colley has "length" or norm signs ( $$\lvert \lvert \cdot \rvert \rvert$$ ) around the numerator and denominator terms while Browder only has modulus signs (that is "length" or norm in his case) around h in the denominator ...

Different authors use different notations, but it's been my experience that those two notations mean the same thing on vectors. One caution: the double lines $\|\cdot\|$ can have different meanings if it has a subscript. So, for example,
$$
\|\mathbf{x}\|_{p}:=
\begin{cases}
\displaystyle\left(\sum_{i=1}^{n}|x_i|^p\right)^{\!\! 1/p}, &\quad 1\le p<\infty \\
\displaystyle\max_{i}|x_i|, &\quad p=\infty.
\end{cases}
$$
The default is $p=2$, in which case you get the Euclidean norm.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K