Solving Equations: Check/Fix Errors & Find Partial Derivatives

  • Thread starter Thread starter Benny
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Solving equations
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the implicit function theorem to a set of equations defining functions u and v in terms of x and y. The original poster seeks to verify their approach in showing local solvability and finding partial derivatives at a specific point.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the implicit function theorem to demonstrate local solvability and compute partial derivatives. They express uncertainty about their setup and the application of the theorem. Other participants suggest reviewing the theorem's proof and constructing the function h for clarity.

Discussion Status

Some participants have provided feedback on the original poster's approach, indicating that the setup appears correct but may require further verification. There is an ongoing exploration of different methods to find the partial derivatives, with some participants sharing their own examples and results.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the importance of correctly applying the implicit function theorem and the potential for errors in matrix calculations. There are references to using computational tools to verify results, highlighting the complexity of the equations involved.

Benny
Messages
577
Reaction score
0
Hi, can someone check/fix my errors in the following question?

Q. Consider the equations

u = x^3 + 2xy + y^2, v = x^2 + y

(i) Show that these equations can be solved locally for x and y as C^1 functions of u and v near the point where x = 1, y = 1, u = 4, v = 2.

(ii) Find [tex]\frac{{\partial x}}{{\partial u}}[/tex] and [tex]\frac{{\partial x}}{{\partial v}}[/tex] at this point.

(i) u = x^3 + 2xy + y^2, v = x^2 + y. I rewrite these equations as

[tex]f\left( {u,v,x,y} \right) = \left( {x^3 + 2xy + y^2 - u,x^2 + y - v} \right) = \left( {0,0} \right)[/tex] where [itex]f:R^4 \to R^2[/itex] is a C^1 function.

I verified that f(4,2,1,1) = (0,0).

[tex] \det \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {\frac{{\partial f_1 }}{{\partial x}}} & {\frac{{\partial f_1 }}{{\partial y}}} \\<br /> {\frac{{\partial f_2 }}{{\partial x}}} & {\frac{{\partial f_2 }}{{\partial y}}} \\<br /> \end{array}} \right][/tex]

[tex] = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {3x^2 + 2y} & {2x + 2y} \\<br /> {2x} & 1 \\<br /> \end{array}} \right|[/tex]

[tex] = \left| {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> 5 & 4 \\<br /> 2 & 1 \\<br /> \end{array}} \right| = - 3 \ne 0[/tex]

at (u,v,x,y) = (4,2,1,1).

So is that enough (i)?

(ii) I think I use the general formula for the derivative in problems of this type to obtain the derivative of (x,y) = h(u,v) in matrix form and then take the relevant parts.

By (i) there is a function of the form [itex]\left( {x,y} \right) = h\left( {u,v} \right)[/itex] near (u,v,x,y) = (4,2,1,1).

[tex] h'\left( {u,v} \right) = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {\frac{{\partial f_1 }}{{\partial x}}} & {\frac{{\partial f_1 }}{{\partial y}}} \\<br /> {\frac{{\partial f_2 }}{{\partial x}}} & {\frac{{\partial f_2 }}{{\partial y}}} \\<br /> \end{array}} \right]^{ - 1} \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {\frac{{\partial f_1 }}{{\partial u}}} & {\frac{{\partial f_1 }}{{\partial v}}} \\<br /> {\frac{{\partial f_2 }}{{\partial u}}} & {\frac{{\partial f_2 }}{{\partial v}}} \\<br /> \end{array}} \right][/tex]

[tex] = \left[ {\begin{array}{*{20}c}<br /> {\frac{{\partial x}}{{\partial u}}} & {\frac{{\partial x}}{{\partial v}}} \\<br /> {\frac{{\partial y}}{{\partial u}}} & {\frac{{\partial y}}{{\partial v}}} \\<br /> \end{array}} \right][/tex] where the last equality follows from the definition of (x,y) = h(u,v).

Do I plug the values of u,v,x,y into the above? I've been having some problems using the implicit function theorem so I don't really know how to do (i) and (ii). Any comments would be good thanks.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
(i) looks fine. For (ii), look at the proof you're given for the implicit function theorem. There must be some sort of construction for h. Use this construction to find the partials. As it stands, I don't know where you're getting the first equality from.
 
I'll do a simple one first:

[tex]F:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2,\quad F(x,y)=(2x+y,x-y)=(u,v)[/tex]

and apply the Implicit Function Theorem near the point (x,y)=(1,2).

The Jacobian of F is:

[tex]\mathcal{J}\left\{F\right\}=<br /> <br /> \left|\begin{array}{cc}2 & 1 \\<br /> 1 & -1 \end{array}\right|\neq 0[/tex]

Therefore by the Inverse Function Theorem:

[tex]F^{-1}:\mathbb{R}^2\rightarrow\mathbb{R}^2,\quad F^{-1}(u,v)=(g_1(u,v),g_2(u,v))=(x,y)[/tex]

near the point (1,2). Thus:

[tex]\left(F^{-1}\right)^{'}(4,-1)=\left[F^{'}\right]^{-1}(1,2)[/tex]

or:

[tex]\left(F^{-1}\right)^{'}(4,-1)=\left[\begin{array}{cc}1/3 & 1/3 \\<br /> 1/3 & -2/3 \end{array}\right][/tex]

That is:

[tex]x_u=1/3[/tex]

[tex]x_v=1/3[/tex]

[tex]y_u=1/3[/tex]

[tex]y_v=-2/3[/tex]
 
Thanks for the help guys.

I appreciate the help and I hope I don't sound arrogant but I don't think my set up is incorrect at this stage. Although I did leave out a negative sign in the first equality (the part with the product of two matrices). I used the same method on Saltydog's example (this time with the negative sign included as it should be according to my notes) and I obtained the same answer as him. I'll go over the theorem again to see if I've missed something.
 
Benny said:
Thanks for the help guys.

I appreciate the help and I hope I don't sound arrogant but I don't think my set up is incorrect at this stage. Although I did leave out a negative sign in the first equality (the part with the product of two matrices). I used the same method on Saltydog's example (this time with the negative sign included as it should be according to my notes) and I obtained the same answer as him. I'll go over the theorem again to see if I've missed something.

Good for you Benny. Didn't wish to imply you were doing anything wrong. Just wanted to work a simple problem. Now, can you verify the values of the derivatives for you problem directly without relying on the Implicit Function Theorem? What for? Whatever.

Oh yea, it could happen. Got Mathematica? Here's part of the code:

Code:
[tex]\text{array}=\left\{x,y\right\}/.Solve[\left\{u==x^3+2xy+y^2,v==
x^2+y\right\},\left\{x,y\right\}][/tex]

Note that quintics are involved so necessarilly Mathematica returns 4 sets of (very messy) solutions, 3 of which are extraneous. Find the good one, calculate the partials and verify:

[tex]x_u(4,2)=-1/3\quad x_v(4,2)=4/3[/tex]

[tex]y_u(4,2)=2/3\quad y_v(4,2)=-5/3[/tex]
 
Last edited:
Thanks for assisting me further Saltydog. When I get around to finishing off that question I'll see if I obtain the same values as the ones you have posted.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K