In my quest to understand the Euler-Lagrange equation, I've realized I have to understand the chain rule first. So, here's the issue:(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

We have [itex]g(\epsilon) = f(t) + \epsilon h(t)[/itex]. We have to compute [itex]\frac{\partial F(g(\epsilon))}{\partial \epsilon}[/itex]. This is supposed to be equal to [itex]\frac{\partial F(f)}{\partial f}h(t)[/itex] when [itex]\epsilon = 0[/itex]. However, this does not make any sense to me. Doing the computations and using the chain rule, I get:

$$\frac{\partial F(g(0))}{\partial \epsilon} = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\frac{F(g(\epsilon)) - F(g(0))}{g(\epsilon) -g(0) } \frac{g(\epsilon) -g(0)}{\epsilon} = \lim_{\epsilon \to 0}\frac{F(f(t)+\epsilon h(t)) - F(f(t))}{\epsilon h(t) } h(t) $$

On an intuitive level I can understand it. I can think of [itex]f(t)+\epsilon h(t)[/itex] as [itex]f+\Delta f[/itex] since [itex]h[/itex] can be any arbitrary function, and that allows me to use the other definition of the derivative. However, it does not seem like a very rigorous way of doing it.

How can I show that [itex]\frac{\partial F(g(0))}{\partial \epsilon} = \frac{\partial F(f)}{\partial f}h(t)[/itex] using the definition of the derivative? Or, rather, a definition of the derivative..?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# I Rigorously understanding chain rule for sum of functions

Have something to add?

Draft saved
Draft deleted

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**