Understanding the Chain Rule Equation: Explained with Examples

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter AndrewGRQTF
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Chain Chain rule
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the application of the chain rule in calculus, specifically regarding the derivative of the function defined as g(q,w) = f(q,-w). Participants clarify that the correct derivative is given by $$\frac{dg}{dw} = -\frac{df}{d(-w)}$$, contradicting a friend's assertion that $$\frac{dg}{dw} = -\frac{df}{dw}$$. The confusion arises from improper notation and the treatment of the function's argument. The correct approach involves recognizing the relationship between the variables and applying the chain rule accurately.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of the chain rule in calculus
  • Familiarity with derivatives and notation
  • Knowledge of function arguments and their significance
  • Basic proficiency in mathematical notation and manipulation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the chain rule in different contexts
  • Learn about function notation and its implications in calculus
  • Explore examples of derivatives involving negative arguments
  • Review common pitfalls in derivative calculations and notation
USEFUL FOR

Students of calculus, educators teaching mathematical concepts, and anyone looking to deepen their understanding of derivative applications and the chain rule.

AndrewGRQTF
Messages
27
Reaction score
2
If we have an equation ##g (q,w) =f(q,-w)## and we want to find the derivative of that equation with respect to w, we would normally do $$\frac {dg}{dw} = \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w) = \frac {df}{d(-w)} \frac {d(-w)}{dw} = -\frac {df}{d(-w)} $$ but my friend is saying that $$\frac {dg}{dw}= -\frac {df}{dw}$$ how is the last equation true?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
AndrewGRQTF said:
If we have an equation ##g (q,w) =f(q,-w)## and we want to find the derivative of that equation with respect to w, we would normally do $$\frac {dg}{dw} = \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w) = \frac {df}{d(-w)} \frac {d(-w)}{dw} = -\frac {df}{d(-w)} $$ but my friend is saying that $$\frac {dg}{dw}= -\frac {df}{dw}$$ how is the last equation true?
Where has the minus in ##d(-w)## gone to? We have ## \frac {dg}{dw} =-\frac {df}{d(-w)}= \frac {df}{dw}\,.##

Make a simple example: ##g(w)=2\cdot w = f(-w) = (-2)\cdot (-w)\,.##
 
##\frac {dg}{dw} \ne \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w)## - write them out using the definition of derivative

friend is right
 
BvU said:
##\frac {dg}{dw} \ne \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w)## - write them out using the definition of derivative

friend is right

But how is ##\frac {dg}{dw} \ne \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w)##? It is given that ##g(q,w) = f(q,-w)## so we just take the derivative of both sides?

Writing out the derivative we have $$\frac{g(q,w+\Delta w) - g(q,w)}{\Delta w} = \frac{f(q,-(w+\Delta w)) - f(q,w)}{\Delta w}$$ as ##\Delta w \to 0##
 
Last edited:
AndrewGRQTF said:
But how is ##\frac {dg}{dw} \ne \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w)##?
It is not unequal! If ##f=g## then ##\dfrac{df}{dw}=\dfrac{dg}{dw}\,.##

First we write ##f(q,-w)=f(q,h(w))## with ##h(w)=-w\,##. Then calculate again ##\dfrac{df}{dw}\,##.
Your friend set ##dw=d(h(w))=d(-w)## which is obviously wrong.

The confusion is due to bad notation, i.e. dropping the variables of the functions. Write it with ##h(.)## and do not drop them anywhere.
 
Last edited:
fresh_42 said:
It is not unequal! If ##f=g## then ##\dfrac{df}{dw}=\dfrac{dg}{dw}\,.##

First we write ##f(q,-w)=f(q,h(w))## with ##h(w)=-w\,##. Then calculate again ##\dfrac{df}{dw}\,##.
Your friend set ##dw=d(h(w))=d(-w)## which is obviously wrong.

The confusion is due to bad notation, i.e. dropping the variables of the functions. Write it with ##h(.)## and do not drop them anywhere.

Ok, thanks for your replies. Why is BvU saying what he's saying?
 
BvU said:
##\frac {dg}{dw} \ne \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w)## - write them out using the definition of derivative

friend is right

How is my friend right?
 
fresh_42 said:
Make a simple example: ##g(w)=2\cdot w = f(-w) = (-2)\cdot (-w)\,.##

I'm having a bad night. My simple example:
$$g(w) = w = f(-w)$$ so ##g(1) = 1## and ## g(-1) =-1## and I was looking at ##f'## and ##g'## -- WRONG ! o:) o:)
 
AndrewGRQTF said:
After I do that and get $$\frac{df}{dw} = \frac{df}{dh} \frac{dh}{dw} = -\frac{df}{dh}$$ what do I do, why did you rewrite it that way?
I rewrote it, because the minus sign at ##w## is the cause of evil here. By writing it as what it is, namely a function itself whose derivative affects the result, I minimize the chance of mumbo-jumbo and brooming it somewhere under the carpet. The situation is (forget the ##q##, esp. as nobody used partial derivatives here!):
##g(w) = f(-w)=f(h(w))## and ##d(-w) = d(h(w)) = -dw## hence $$\dfrac{dg}{dw}=\dfrac{df(h(w))}{dw}=-\dfrac{df(h(w))}{d(-w)}=-\dfrac{df(h)}{dh}=-\dfrac{df(w)}{dw}=\dfrac{df(-w)}{dw}$$
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: AndrewGRQTF
  • #10
fresh_42 said:
I rewrote it, because the minus sign at ##w## is the cause of evil here. By writing it as what it is, namely a function itself whose derivative affects the result, I minimize the chance of mumbo-jumbo and brooming it somewhere under the carpet. The situation is (forget the ##q##, esp. as nobody used partial derivatives here!):
##g(w) = f(-w)=f(h(w))## and ##d(-w) = d(h(w)) = -dw## hence $$\dfrac{dg}{dw}=\dfrac{df(h(w))}{dw}=-\dfrac{df(h(w))}{d(-w)}=-\dfrac{df(h)}{dh}=-\dfrac{df(w)}{dw}=\dfrac{df(-w)}{dw}$$

Thanks a lot. I learned something important: not to forget about the argument of a function
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: fresh_42
  • #11
AndrewGRQTF said:
If we have an equation ##g (q,w) =f(q,-w)## and we want to find the derivative of that equation with respect to w, we would normally do $$\frac {dg}{dw} = \frac {d}{dw} f(q,-w) = \frac {df}{d(-w)} \frac {d(-w)}{dw} = -\frac {df}{d(-w)} $$ but my friend is saying that $$\frac {dg}{dw}= -\frac {df}{dw}$$ how is the last equation true?
$$\frac{d}{dw} f(q,-w) = \frac{d}{d(-w)} f(q,-w) \cdot \frac{d(-w)}{dw} = - f'(q,-w),$$
where ##f'(q,x) = (d/dx) f(q,x),## so ##f'(q,-w) = \left. f'(q,x) \right|_{x=-w}##

Basically, you just need to apply the chain rule to ##f(q,h(w))##, with ##h(w) = -w.##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K