[resolved] Partial Derivative Relationships

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The relationship between the partial derivatives \(\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}\), \(\frac{\partial z}{\partial y}\), and \(\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}\) is established as \(\frac{\partial z}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \cdot \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} = 0\). This holds true under the condition that the function \(f(x,y)\) is differentiable and that the variables satisfy the constraints \(z = f(x,y)\) and \(y = g(x,z)\). The proof involves applying the differential formula and recognizing the independence of the right-hand side from \(x\). The discussion highlights the importance of differentiability in establishing this relationship.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial derivatives and their notation
  • Familiarity with the chain rule in multivariable calculus
  • Knowledge of differentiable functions and their properties
  • Experience with composite functions and implicit differentiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the chain rule in multivariable calculus
  • Explore implicit differentiation techniques
  • Investigate the properties of differentiable functions
  • Learn about the applications of partial derivatives in optimization problems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus, multivariable functions, and optimization techniques. This discussion is beneficial for anyone looking to deepen their understanding of partial derivatives and their relationships in multivariable contexts.

hotvette
Homework Helper
Messages
1,001
Reaction score
11
I'm trying to come up with an expression for \partial y / \partial x where z = f(x,y). By observation (i.e. evaluating several sample functions), the following appears to be true:
<br /> \begin{equation*}<br /> \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \cdot \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} = 0<br /> \end{equation*}<br />
but I can't find anything to prove it. I can sort of get there using the differential formula
<br /> dz = \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} \cdot dx + \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \cdot dy<br />
then dividing by dx and reasoning that dz/dx = 0 because z is constant when evaluating \partial y / \partial x, but I suspect this isn't a valid approach.

My questions are:

(1) Is the above relationship between \partial z / \partial x, \partial z / \partial y, and \partial y / \partial x true?

(2) How to prove it?P.S. Here is an example:
<br /> \begin{align}<br /> z = x^3y &amp;&amp;<br /> y = zx^{-3} &amp;&amp;<br /> \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} = 3x^2y &amp;&amp;<br /> \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} = x^3 &amp;&amp;<br /> \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} = -3zx^{-4} = -3x^3yx^{-4} = -3y/x<br /> \end{align}<br />
<br /> \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} + \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} \cdot \frac{\partial y}{\partial x}<br /> = 3x^2y + x^3 \cdot \left(-3y/x\right) = 3x^2y - 3x^2y = 0<br />
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Let x,y,z be variables that satisfy a constraint of the form ##z=f(x,y)##. For all x,y,z such that x and z have values such that this constraint can be solved for y, the variables also satisfy a constraint of the form ##y=g(x,z)##, and we have ##z=f(x,y)=f(x,g(x,z))##. What you have discovered is essentially just that the value of the right-hand side is independent of the value of x, as it must be since it's equal to z.

The only caveat is that the map ##(x,z)\mapsto f(x,g(x,z))## must be differentiable for your calculation to make sense. For this to be the case, f must be a nice enough function. In particular, it must be such that the domain of the map ##(x,z)\mapsto f(x,g(x,z))## isn't something ridiculous like a singleton set or a curve ##z=C(x)##.

Let h be the function such that ##h(x,z)=f(x,g(x,z))## for all ##x,z## such that the original constraint can be solved for y. For all ##x,z## such that h is differentiable, we have
$$0=D_1h(x,z)=D_1 f(x,g(x,z))+D_2 f(x,g(x,z)) D_1g(x,z) =\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial z}{\partial y}\frac{\partial y}{\partial x}.$$
 
Makes perfect sense when viewed as a composite function. I'm surprised this relation isn't mentioned in my advanced calculus book. Doesn't seem to me to be such an obscure item.

It came up because I'm trying to find out where \frac{\partial y}{\partial x} =0 which in my case is very difficult to evaluate whereas \frac{\partial z}{\partial x} and \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} are straightforward. I discovered that I could just find where \frac{\partial z}{\partial y} = 0 but I didn't know why it worked. Now I do. Thanks.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K