Taylor Expansion to Understanding the Chain Rule

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the chain rule in multivariate calculus, specifically regarding the function F(t) = f(x(t), y(t)). Participants clarify that F(t) is not explicitly expressed as a function of t, which is crucial for correctly applying the chain rule. The correct differentiation approach involves using the formula dF/dt = ∂F/∂x * dx/dt + ∂F/∂y * dy/dt, ensuring that variables are appropriately defined. Additionally, there is a critique of a dimensional analysis error in the original post regarding the relationship between distance and time.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multivariate calculus concepts
  • Familiarity with the chain rule in calculus
  • Knowledge of partial derivatives
  • Basic understanding of dimensional analysis
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the chain rule in multivariate calculus
  • Learn about partial derivatives and their applications
  • Review dimensional analysis principles in physics and mathematics
  • Explore examples of differentiating functions of multiple variables
USEFUL FOR

Students and educators in mathematics, particularly those studying calculus and its applications, as well as anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of the chain rule in multivariate contexts.

TimeRip496
Messages
249
Reaction score
5
upload_2015-12-20_16-36-58.png
I don't understand this as isn't according to chain rule,
upload_2015-12-20_16-38-25.png
.
So where is the
upload_2015-12-20_16-38-56.png
in the above derivative of F(t)?
Source: http://www.math.ubc.ca/~feldman/m226/taylor2d.pdf
 
Physics news on Phys.org
##F(t) = f(x(t),y(t))##, so despite written to be a function of ##t##, the functional form of ##F(t)## is not written explicitly as a function of ##t##.
 
blue_leaf77 said:
##F(t) = f(x(t),y(t))##, so despite written to be a function of ##t##, the functional form of ##F(t)## is not written explicitly as a function of ##t##.
Why is it not a function of t? I am still new to this so do you have something i can read on about this?
Besides thanks for your response!
 
TimeRip496 said:
Why is it not a function of t?
It's not an explicit function of ##t##. When you want to do chain rule, you have to pay attention on which variables are written explicitly, despite whether or not these variables are functions of yet another variable. For example take ##F(t) = xy^2## where ##x = \sqrt{t}## and ##y=t-2##. If you want to calculate ##dF/dt##, you can either first express ##x## and ##y## in terms of ##t## and then differentiate w.r.t. ##t## or let ##F## be expressed in ##x## and ##y## then use the chain rule
$$
\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{\partial F}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial y} \frac{dy}{dt} .
$$
Both answers should be identical.
TimeRip496 said:
do you have something i can read on about this?
I guess this problem should belong to multivariate calculus.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: TimeRip496
blue_leaf77 said:
It's not an explicit function of ##t##. When you want to do chain rule, you have to pay attention on which variables are written explicitly, despite whether or not these variables are functions of yet another variable. For example take ##F(t) = xy^2## where ##x = \sqrt{t}## and ##y=t-2##. If you want to calculate ##dF/dt##, you can either first express ##x## and ##y## in terms of ##t## and then differentiate w.r.t. ##t## or let ##F## be expressed in ##x## and ##y## then use the chain rule
$$
\frac{dF}{dt} = \frac{\partial F}{\partial x} \frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{\partial F}{\partial y} \frac{dy}{dt} .
$$
Both answers should be identical.

I guess this problem should belong to multivariate calculus.
Thanks a lot! I now understand.
 
I do not agree with the formula shown in the OP (dimensional analysis again). The picture states that \frac{d}{dt}x(t) = \Delta x which is obviously wrong. If x is distance and t is time, it tries to assert that velocity equals a (short) distance. The correct statement is \frac{d}{dt}x(t) \cdot \Delta t= \Delta x.
I can agree with the second line, but the third line is pure nonsense.
 
Svein said:
I do not agree with the formula shown in the OP (dimensional analysis again). The picture states that \frac{d}{dt}x(t) = \Delta x which is obviously wrong. If x is distance and t is time, it tries to assert that velocity equals a (short) distance. The correct statement is \frac{d}{dt}x(t) \cdot \Delta t= \Delta x.
I can agree with the second line, but the third line is pure nonsense.
In the linked pdf file, the author for some reason sets ##\Delta t = 1##.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K