What is the geometric interpretation of the partial derivative?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the geometric interpretation of the partial derivative, particularly in the context of functions of multiple variables. Participants explore definitions, differences between differentials and derivatives, and the geometric implications of these concepts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a limit definition for the derivative of a function E dependent on x, y, and z, questioning its correctness compared to another expression involving partial derivatives.
  • Another participant argues that the correct formulation involves differentials rather than derivatives, emphasizing the distinction between the two.
  • A participant expresses uncertainty about their initial expectations regarding the first definition, attributing it to intuition and a lack of understanding.
  • Several participants reference standard definitions from calculus, suggesting that the differential can be expressed in terms of partial derivatives and infinitesimals.
  • One participant attempts to clarify the geometric interpretation by relating the total differential to changes in the z component of a tangent plane in three-dimensional space.
  • Another participant discusses the geometric picture in the context of functions of one variable, illustrating how the tangent line relates to changes in the function's output.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct formulation of the derivative and its geometric interpretation. There is no consensus on which definition is correct, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the underlying geometric significance.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential communication issues and misunderstandings regarding the definitions and their implications. The discussion reflects varying levels of familiarity with the concepts involved.

gulsen
Messages
215
Reaction score
0
Say, E is dependent to x,y,z. I'm expecting it's derivative at x_0,y_0,z_0 to be

dE = \lim_{\substack{\Delta x\rightarrow 0\\\Delta y\rightarrow 0\\\Delta z\rightarrow 0}} E(x_0+\Delta x, y_0+\Delta y,z_0+\Delta z) - E(x_0,y_0,z_0)

But with following definition, it's not the thing above:

dE = \lim_{\substack{\Delta x\rightarrow 0\\\Delta y\rightarrow 0\\\Delta z\rightarrow 0}} \frac{E(x_0+\Delta x, y_0,z_0) - E(x_0,y_0,z_0)}{\Delta x} \Delta x + \frac{E(x_0, y_0+\Delta y,z_0) - E(x_0,y_0,z_0)}{\Delta y} \Delta y + \frac{E(x_0, y_0,z_0+\Delta z) - E(x_0,y_0,z_0)}{\Delta z} \Delta z = \frac{\partial E}{\partial x}dx + \frac{\partial E}{\partial y}dy + \frac{\partial E}{\partial z}dz.

Now, which is correct? (and why?!?)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Neither one. The differential (not "derivative") is
dE= \left(\lim_{\Delta x\rightarrow0}\frac{E(x_0+\Delta x,y_0,z_0)-E(x_0,y_0,z_0)}{\Delta x}\right)dx+ \left(\lim_{\Delta y\rightarrow 0}\frac{E(x_0,y_0+\Delta y,z_0)-E(x_0,y_0,z_0)}{\Delta y}\right)dy+ \left(\lim_{\Delta z\rightarrow 0}\frac{E(x_0,y_0,z_0+\Delta z)-E(x_0,y_0,z_0)}{\Delta z}\right)dz
That's the same as your second formula except for the "d" rather than "\Delta" in the numerator.

Why would you "expect" the first? In one variable, would you "expect" the differential of f(x) to be
df= lim_{\substack{\Delta x\rightarrow 0}}f(x_0+\Delta x)- f(x_0)
If f is any continuous function, that's 0!
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Whoops, just a typo anyway.

Why would you "expect" the first?

That was just a guesswork based on intuition and my ignorance, I simply don't know. So tell me, why would you expect the latter?
 
Well, at least you could point some links.
 
Or you could look at the definition of the differential in any calculus book:

df(x,y,z)= \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+ \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy+ \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}dz
which, if you go back to the definition of the partial derivatives, is the formula I gave.
 
Whoops, we've got a communication problem here, it seems.
I know that this is the definition, and I've written it before you as well. My question is: why? What geometry/mathematical quantity does this correntponds to?
 
From what I've found, it should be like this:
df(x,y,z)= \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx \vec{i} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy \vec{j} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial z}dz \vec{k}
But this way, for the magnitude of this df, we got to multiply (dot product) df with itself and square root...
 
gulsen said:
Whoops, we've got a communication problem here, it seems.
I know that this is the definition, and I've written it before you as well. My question is: why? What geometry/mathematical quantity does this correntponds to?
Just picture f as a function of two variables instead of three; z = f(x,y). Thus f can be represented by a surface S in 3 space. The total differential df in the equation
df(x,y)= \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+ \frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy
would represent the change in the z component of the tangent plane T of f at a point P at coordinates (x,y,z) as we go to some other point P' at (x+delta x,y+delta y,f(x+delta x,y+delta y)). In this case, since delta x and delta y are independent variables, we can say dx=delta x and dy=delta y; i.e dx and dy can be actual distance values. Notice that df is related to the z component of points in T but delta f is related to the z component of points in the surface that f generates.

It's even easier to picture if you just consider f as function of one variable: y=f(x). Though you lose the "partial" nature of the derivative, the geometric picture you were looking for is still there. For example, you can picture some curved line that f generates and some tangent line T at a point P at (x, f(x)). If you take another point on the curve P' at (x+delta x, f(x+delta x)), dy would represent the vertical distance between a horizontal line through P and the tangent line T. In other words, dy would represent the distance that T changes in the y direction for some change dx=delta x in the x direction. We could imagine an animal called delta y (as distinct from dy) that represents the distance from the horizontal line through point P to the CURVE (rather than the tangent line T).

Why would I even begin to set here and type all that?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K