MHB The Chain Rule in n Dimensions .... Browder Theorem 8.15 - Another Question ....

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around understanding the proof of Theorem 8.15 from Andrew Browder's "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction," specifically the expression relating the compositions of functions. The key point is demonstrating that the difference between the compositions at two points can be expressed in terms of the derivatives of the functions involved. The participants clarify that by defining appropriate notations for the mappings and using the chain rule, one can show that the expression holds true. The proof hinges on the definitions of differentials and the behavior of small vectors in the context of differentiable maps. Overall, the conversation effectively unpacks the mathematical reasoning behind the theorem's proof.
Math Amateur
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,920
Reaction score
48
I am reading Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 8: Differentiable Maps and am specifically focused on Section 8.2 Differentials ... ...

I need some further help in order to fully understand the proof of Theorem 8.15 ...

Theorem 8.15 and its proof read as follows:
View attachment 9416
View attachment 9417In the above proof by Browder we read the following:" ... ... Now

$$(g \circ f) (p + h) - (g \circ h) (p) = g(q + k) - g(q)$$ ... ... "

Can someone please show how/why $$(g \circ f) (p + h) - (g \circ h) (p) = g(q + k) - g(q)$$ ... ...

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
 

Attachments

  • Browder - 1 - Theorem 8.15 ... PART 1 ... ....png
    Browder - 1 - Theorem 8.15 ... PART 1 ... ....png
    16.9 KB · Views: 135
  • Browder - 2 - Theorem 8.15 ... PART 2  ... .....png
    Browder - 2 - Theorem 8.15 ... PART 2 ... .....png
    4.6 KB · Views: 151
Physics news on Phys.org
Peter said:
I am reading Andrew Browder's book: "Mathematical Analysis: An Introduction" ... ...

I am currently reading Chapter 8: Differentiable Maps and am specifically focused on Section 8.2 Differentials ... ...

I need some further help in order to fully understand the proof of Theorem 8.15 ...

Theorem 8.15 and its proof read as follows:

In the above proof by Browder we read the following:" ... ... Now

$$(g \circ f) (p + h) - (g \circ h) (p) = g(q + k) - g(q)$$ ... ... "

Can someone please show how/why $$(g \circ f) (p + h) - (g \circ h) (p) = g(q + k) - g(q)$$ ... ...

Help will be appreciated ...

Peter
It now appears to me that the answer to my question is quite straightforward ...

We have ...$$(g \circ f) (p + h) - (g \circ h) (p) = g(q + k) - g(q)$$

$$= g[ f(p + h) ] - g[f(p)]$$ ...

But ... we have that ...

$$k = f(p+h) - f(p)$$

so that

$$f(p+h) = k + f(p) = q + k$$

Therefore

$$g[ f(p + h) ] - g[f(p)] = g(q + k ) - g(q)$$ ...Don't know why I didn't see it ...

Peter
 
Hi Peter,

I'm also currently working through Chapter 8 of Browder's book and I can help clarify the proof of Theorem 8.15 for you.

First, let's define some notation. We have two maps, f : U \to V and g : V \to W, where U, V, and W are open sets in \mathbb{R}^n. Let p \in U and q = f(p) \in V. We also have a small vector h \in \mathbb{R}^n such that p + h \in U and q + k = f(p + h) \in V.

Now, the goal is to show that (g \circ f) (p + h) - (g \circ f) (p) = g(q + k) - g(q).

Using the definition of composition of maps, we can rewrite (g \circ f) (p + h) as g(f(p + h)) and (g \circ f) (p) as g(f(p)). Substituting our definitions of q and k, we get g(q + k) and g(q).

Next, we can use the definition of the differential of a map to rewrite g(f(p + h)) - g(f(p)) as Dg(q + k) \cdot Df(p + h) - Dg(q) \cdot Df(p).

Now, using the chain rule for differentiable maps, we can rewrite Dg(q + k) \cdot Df(p + h) as D(g \circ f) (p + h) and Dg(q) \cdot Df(p) as D(g \circ f) (p).

Therefore, we have shown that (g \circ f) (p + h) - (g \circ f) (p) = D(g \circ f) (p + h) - D(g \circ f) (p).

Finally, using the definition of the differential of a map again, we can rewrite D(g \circ f) (p + h) - D(g \circ f) (p) as D(g \circ f) (p + h - p).

Since h is a small vector, p + h - p is also a small vector and thus we can use the definition of the differential once more to rewrite D(g \circ f) (p
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K