Why Aren't Partial Derivatives Written with Respect to Composite Variables?

demonelite123
Messages
216
Reaction score
0
Let g(t) = f(tx, ty).

Using the chain rule, we get g'(t) = (\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})(tx, ty) * x + (\frac{\partial f}{\partial y})(tx, ty) * y

this was actually part of a proof and what i don't understand is that why didn't they write (\frac{\partial f}{\partial (tx)}) and (\frac{\partial f}{\partial (ty)})? i know that the factors of x and y come from (\frac{\partial (tx)}{\partial t}) and (\frac{\partial (ty)}{\partial t}) respectively, but why aren't the other 2 partial derivatives with respect to tx and ty? what happened to the t's?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Because it looks untidy and ##t_x = x## right?
 
Simon Bridge said:
Because it looks untidy and ##t_x = x## right?

sorry, what do you mean by t_x = x? partial derivative of t with respect to x? could you explain a little more?
 
sorry, what do you mean by tx=x?
Given the context it looked like x and y were being parameterized.
Did you not mean "tx" as tx but as ##t\times x##?

g=f(h,k) ... h=tx, k=ty ??
 
yes i meant for tx and ty to be t*x and t*y (normal multiplication) respectively.
 
This confusion is due to sloppy notation in the book.

Suppose you have a function f(X,Y). Now, set X=X(x,t)=x*t, Y=Y(y,t)=y*t, so that

g(t)=f(X(x,t),Y(y,t)) (when we "forget" that g(t) really should be regarded as g(x,y,t)!)

Now, we get:

g'(t)=f_(X)*X_(t)+f_(Y)*Y_(t), where the subscript is what we differentiate the function with respect to.
 
... yeh: the "prime" is usually differentiation wrt to space not time but it is also a common typo.

if I use the careful notation on ##g=f(h,k) : h=xt, k=yt## (from post #4)$$g' = hf_h+kf_k = xt\frac{\partial f}{\partial h}+yt\frac{\partial f}{\partial k}$$...so the question becomes: why not then write$$g'=xt\frac{\partial f}{\partial (xt)}+yt\frac{\partial f}{\partial (yt)}$$... that what you are asking?
Well: $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial h}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial h} = \frac{1}{t}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}$$... is probably tidier.
It let's is write, instead: $$g'=x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+y\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}$$... does that work?
 
Simon Bridge said:
... yeh: the "prime" is usually differentiation wrt to space not time but it is also a common typo.

if I use the careful notation on ##g=f(h,k) : h=xt, k=yt## (from post #4)$$g' = hf_h+kf_k = xt\frac{\partial f}{\partial h}+yt\frac{\partial f}{\partial k}$$...so the question becomes: why not then write$$g'=xt\frac{\partial f}{\partial (xt)}+yt\frac{\partial f}{\partial (yt)}$$... that what you are asking?
Well: $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial h}=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}\frac{\partial x}{\partial h} = \frac{1}{t}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}$$... is probably tidier.
It let's is write, instead: $$g'=x\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+y\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}$$... does that work?

for the derivative g' which variable is the derivative with respect to? also, how come in your expansion of the chain rule for g' you have fh and fk but they are being multiplied by just h and k respectively? shouldn't it be something like fhh' + fkk'?

also, thank you for your reply.
 
for the derivative g' which variable is the derivative with respect to?
look at post #1.
 
  • #10
i've been thinking about this and i am still confused on this issue. i recently came across a similar issue that is really making me doubt my competence with the chain rule.

my book wants to take the partial derivative of f(y + an, y' + an', x) with respect to a. So it simply writes: \frac{\partial{f(y + an, y' + an', x)}}{\partial a} = n\frac{\partial f}{\partial y} + n'\frac{\partial f}{\partial y'}.

once again, i am very confused over why didn't instead write: \frac{\partial f(y + an, y' + an', x)}{\partial a} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial (y + an)}\frac{\partial (y + an)}{\partial a} + \frac{\partial f}{\partial (y' + an')}\frac{\partial(y' + an')}{\partial a} = \frac{\partial f}{\partial (y + an)}n + \frac{\partial f}{\partial (y' + an')}n'.

further patience with me would be greatly appreciated.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top