Show that f'(x) grad f(x) is positive

  • Thread starter Thread starter JulienB
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Grad Positive
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a statement related to differentiable functions from \(\mathbb{R}^3\) to \(\mathbb{R}\). The original poster seeks to establish that the limit involving the function and its gradient is non-negative at any point in \(\mathbb{R}^3\).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the validity of the original poster's approach to the limit and the use of directional derivatives. There are questions about the handling of the total derivative and its implications for the problem.

Discussion Status

Some participants express agreement with the original poster's reasoning, while others provide alternative formulations using inner products. The conversation includes clarifications about the relationship between partial and total derivatives, with ongoing exploration of definitions and concepts.

Contextual Notes

There is a focus on the assumptions regarding differentiability and the implications for the limit being discussed. Participants are also considering the definitions of partial and total derivatives in the context of approximating slopes and functions.

JulienB
Messages
408
Reaction score
12

Homework Statement



Hi everybody! I'm preparing a maths exam so I run through a lot of problems, and I am unsure whether I tackled this one correctly or not:

Prove that for every differentiable function ##f: \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}## and for every point ##x \in \mathbb{R}^3## the following statement is true:

##\lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{f(x+t \nabla f(x)) - f(x)}{t} \geq 0##

Homework Equations



I have the following definitions:

##f'(x) = \frac{\partial (f_1, ..., f_m)}{\partial (x_1, ..., x_n)} (x)##

Directional derivative: ##f'(x)v = \lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{1}{t} (f(x + tv) - f(x))##

The Attempt at a Solution



So what I did was pretty straightforward:

##\lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{f(x + t \nabla f(x)) - f(x)}{t} = f'(x) \nabla f(x)##
##= [\partial_1 f(x) \partial_2 f(x) \partial_3 f(x)] \cdot [\partial_1 f(x), \partial_2 f(x), \partial_3 f(x)]##
##= (\partial_1 f(x))^2 + (\partial_2 f(x))^2 + (\partial_3 f(x))^2 \geq 0##

Is that legit? Not sure about my handling from ##f'(x)##. Should I have used the total differential definition? Would I obtain the same result? I'm still unclear about total derivatives :)Thanks a lot in advance for your answers.Julien.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
JulienB said:

Homework Statement



Hi everybody! I'm preparing a maths exam so I run through a lot of problems, and I am unsure whether I tackled this one correctly or not:

Prove that for every differentiable function ##f: \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}## and for every point ##x \in \mathbb{R}^3## the following statement is true:

##\lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{f(x+t \nabla f(x)) - f(x)}{t} \geq 0##

Homework Equations



I have the following definitions:

##f'(x) = \frac{\partial (f_1, ..., f_m)}{\partial (x_1, ..., x_n)} (x)##

Directional derivative: ##f'(x)v = \lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{1}{t} (f(x + tv) - f(x))##

The Attempt at a Solution



So what I did was pretty straightforward:

##\lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{f(x + t \nabla f(x)) - f(x)}{t} = f'(x) \nabla f(x)##
##= [\partial_1 f(x) \partial_2 f(x) \partial_3 f(x)] \cdot [\partial_1 f(x), \partial_2 f(x), \partial_3 f(x)]##
##= (\partial_1 f(x))^2 + (\partial_2 f(x))^2 + (\partial_3 f(x))^2 \geq 0##

Is that legit? Not sure about my handling from ##f'(x)##. Should I have used the total differential definition? Would I obtain the same result? I'm still unclear about total derivatives :)Thanks a lot in advance for your answers.
Julien.

For a vector ##\vec{u} \in R^3## we have
$$\lim_{t \to 0} \frac{f(\vec{x} + t \vec{u}) - f(\vec{x})}{t} = \langle \vec{u}, \vec{\nabla} f(\vec{x}) \rangle,$$
where ##\langle \vec{p}, \vec{q} \rangle## denotes the inner product of the vectors ##\vec{p}, \vec{q}##. You are taking ##\vec{u} = \vec{\nabla} f(\vec{x})##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JulienB
JulienB said:

Homework Statement



Hi everybody! I'm preparing a maths exam so I run through a lot of problems, and I am unsure whether I tackled this one correctly or not:

Prove that for every differentiable function ##f: \mathbb{R}^3 \to \mathbb{R}## and for every point ##x \in \mathbb{R}^3## the following statement is true:

##\lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{f(x+t \nabla f(x)) - f(x)}{t} \geq 0##

Homework Equations



I have the following definitions:

##f'(x) = \frac{\partial (f_1, ..., f_m)}{\partial (x_1, ..., x_n)} (x)##

Directional derivative: ##f'(x)v = \lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{1}{t} (f(x + tv) - f(x))##

The Attempt at a Solution



So what I did was pretty straightforward:

##\lim\limits_{t \to 0} \frac{f(x + t \nabla f(x)) - f(x)}{t} = f'(x) \nabla f(x)##
##= [\partial_1 f(x) \partial_2 f(x) \partial_3 f(x)] \cdot [\partial_1 f(x), \partial_2 f(x), \partial_3 f(x)]##
##= (\partial_1 f(x))^2 + (\partial_2 f(x))^2 + (\partial_3 f(x))^2 \geq 0##

Is that legit? Not sure about my handling from ##f'(x)##. Should I have used the total differential definition? Would I obtain the same result? I'm still unclear about total derivatives :)Thanks a lot in advance for your answers.Julien.
It looks right to me. I would have written the limit as ##(\nabla_{(\nabla f)(x)}f)(x) \overset{(*)}= (\nabla f (x))\cdot (\nabla f (x)) = |\nabla f (x)|^2##. The total differentiability of ##f## is hidden in ##(*)## which allows you to write the directional derivative in direction ##v## (##=(\nabla f)(x)## in this case) as ##D_v f(x) = \nabla f(x) \cdot v##. Other than directional differentiability and partial differentiability (which are simply special directional derivatives), the total differentiability allows us to choose any direction. In this case ##v=(\nabla f)(x)## is a linear combination of partial derivatives.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JulienB
Ray Vickson said:
For a vector ##\vec{u} \in R^3## we have
$$\lim_{t \to 0} \frac{f(\vec{x} + t \vec{u}) - f(\vec{x})}{t} = \langle \vec{u}, \vec{\nabla} f(\vec{x}) \rangle,$$
where ##\langle \vec{p}, \vec{q} \rangle## denotes the inner product of the vectors ##\vec{p}, \vec{q}##. You are taking ##\vec{u} = \vec{\nabla} f(\vec{x})##.

@Ray Vickson Hi and thanks for your answer! I like the way you write the definition with the inner product. At the end it gives the same result that I wrote, right?

fresh_42 said:
It looks right to me. I would have written the limit as ##(\nabla_{(\nabla f)(x)}f)(x) \overset{(*)}= (\nabla f (x))\cdot (\nabla f (x)) = |\nabla f (x)|^2##. The total differentiability of ##f## is hidden in ##(*)## which allows you to write the directional derivative in direction ##v## (##=(\nabla f)(x)## in this case) as ##D_v f(x) = \nabla f(x) \cdot v##. Other than directional differentiability and partial differentiability (which are simply special directional derivatives), the total differentiability allows us to choose any direction. In this case ##v=(\nabla f)(x)## is a linear combination of partial derivatives.

@fresh_42 Hello and thank you for your answer as well. :) Of course I realized the equality holds only because the problem states that the function is differentiable. I am still unsure about the meaning of the total derivative. So far I understand it like that: the partial differentials hold for analytical use of a function, while the total differential becomes useful when wanting to approximate the slope at a given point. Would you support that statement? If not, could you maybe give me an example of partial and total differentiation so that I can visualise it? My interpretation is based on the following observation (for the case ##f: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}##):

##f' (\vec{x}) = \frac{\partial (f_1, ... , f_m)}{\partial (x_1, ... , x_n)} (x) = \mbox{vector}##
##f' (\vec{x}) = \sum \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i} dx_i = \mbox{scalar}##

First of all, is that correct? And if so, would you say that "the total differentiability allows us to choose any direction" when we plug in arbitrary ##dx_i## for a given point ##\vec{x}##?Thanks a lot again to both of you for your answers, I really appreciate your explanations!Julien.
 
JulienB said:
So far I understand it like that: the partial differentials hold for analytical use of a function, while the total differential becomes useful when wanting to approximate the slope at a given point. Would you support that statement?
Not really. Partial derivatives also approximate the slope at a given point. Just in the direction of the coordinates. A total differential approximates a function ##f## as a whole by a linear function ##L## (the total differential), i.e. you may write ##f(\vec{x}+\vec{v}) = f(\vec{x}) + L(\vec{v}) +r(\vec{v})## such that ##\lim_{\vec{v} \rightarrow 0} \frac{r(\vec{v}}{||\vec{v}||} = 0##. This means ##f## can be approximated by ##L## such that the error terms in ##r## run faster towards zero than ##L## does, or as it often occurs (e.g. in Taylor expansions), ##r## has terms in ##\vec{v}## of higher orders than ##1##.

If not, could you maybe give me an example of partial and total differentiation so that I can visualise it? My interpretation is based on the following observation (for the case ##f: \mathbb{R}^n \to \mathbb{R}##):

##f' (\vec{x}) = \frac{\partial (f_1, ... , f_m)}{\partial (x_1, ... , x_n)} (x) = \mbox{vector}##
##f' (\vec{x}) = \sum \frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i} dx_i = \mbox{scalar}##

First of all, is that correct? And if so, would you say that "the total differentiability allows us to choose any direction" when we plug in arbitrary ##dx_i## for a given point ##\vec{x}##?
I have difficulties with naming everything ##x##. You should try to get used to distinguish when you are speaking of a function in the variable ##x##, coordinates ##x_i## or ##x^i## and eventual evaluation points ##x_0=p,## e.g. where the derivative is evaluated at. I'm not sure if I got you right. E.g. you may denote a gradient better by $$grad(f) = \nabla f = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i} \vec{e}_i$$ or more physical $$\nabla f = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i} dx_i$$ and $$\nabla_p f = \sum_{i=1}^{n}\left(\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}\right)_{x=p} dx_i$$

In addition, how can ##f'(\vec{x})## simultaneously be a vector and a scalar? Only by evaluation of ##\nabla_p f## at a certain point, which should not be denoted by the variable name.

An example for the difference between partial and total differentiation is the following:
$$f(\vec{x}) = \begin{cases} \frac{2x_1x_2}{x_1^2+x_2^2} & \text{if } (x_1,x_2) \neq (0,0) \\ \\ 0 & \text{if } (x_1,x_2) = (0,0) \end{cases}$$
##f## is partially differentiable at ##(0,0)## but not continuous at ##(0,0)##. And you might want to calculate what happens along the line ##x_1 = x_2##. The latter is an example of a direction that is not along a coordinate.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: JulienB
@fresh_42 Thank you again for your answer, it is very complete and I am slowly starting to understand. I will study the matter for some more time on my own and probably come back here for more questions later on :)

Julien.
 

Similar threads

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K