Why does Δx tend to 0 when Δu tends to 0 in the chain rule?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the chain rule in calculus, specifically addressing the relationship between the limits of Δx and Δu as they approach zero. Participants explore the reasoning behind the assertion that Δx tends to 0 exactly when Δu tends to 0, using examples and definitions related to derivatives and functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Technical explanation, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the reasoning behind the statement that Δx approaches 0 when Δu approaches 0, seeking clarification on this aspect of the chain rule.
  • Another participant suggests that since u is a function of x, any change in x results in a change in u, implying that if x does not change, u does not change either.
  • A different participant provides a mathematical expression showing how Δu is derived from Δx, indicating that as Δx approaches 0, Δu also approaches 0.
  • Some participants express skepticism about the proof presented in the book, suggesting alternative methods or more rigorous proofs from other sources, including Wikipedia.
  • One participant acknowledges their confusion regarding the proof and expresses gratitude for the clarifications provided by others, indicating that their understanding has improved.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally express differing views on the adequacy of the proof provided in the book, with some finding it insufficient while others offer alternative explanations. The discussion does not reach a consensus on the best approach to proving the chain rule.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note that the proof in question may not be applicable to all cases and that the definitions used in the proof could lead to confusion, particularly regarding the treatment of Δu in different contexts.

cupu
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
Hello,

Looking through a book on calculus I found the following explanation for the chain rule and I have one unclear thing that I'd like to ask for help on.

The canonical example is used, y is a function of u: [tex]y = u^{n}[/tex] and u is a function of x (let's say) [tex]u = 3x - 2[/tex] therefore by composition y is a function of x.

By the definition of the derivative:

[tex]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}{\frac{f(x+\Delta x) - f(x)}{\Delta x}}[/tex]
we can say that
[tex]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}{\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}}[/tex]

in the same way that
[tex]\frac{dy}{du} = \lim_{\Delta u\to0}{\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u}}[/tex]
and
[tex]\frac{du}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}{\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}}[/tex]

Then, using the equation:
[tex]\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u} \cdot \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}[/tex]

we can write

[tex]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}(\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u} \cdot \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}) = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u}\lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}[/tex]

then it is said that "However because u is a function of x, [tex]\Delta x \rightarrow 0[/tex] exactly when [tex]\Delta u \rightarrow 0[/tex] so

[tex]\lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u} \lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta u\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u}\lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} = \frac{dy}{du} \cdot \frac{du}{dx}[/tex]

And so the chain rule.

The part in red is the one I couldn't understand, specifically why does [tex]\Delta x \rightarrow 0[/tex] exactly when [tex]\Delta u \rightarrow 0[/tex] ?

Sorry for the lengthy post and thanks in advance for any help.

Cheers!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Buy another, more rigorous book.

"Proofs" like this want to make me rip my hair out.
 
cupu said:
Hello,

Looking through a book on calculus I found the following explanation for the chain rule and I have one unclear thing that I'd like to ask for help on.

The canonical example is used, y is a function of u: [tex]y = u^{n}[/tex] and u is a function of x (let's say) [tex]u = 3x - 2[/tex] therefore by composition y is a function of x.

By the definition of the derivative:

[tex]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}{\frac{f(x+\Delta x) - f(x)}{\Delta x}}[/tex]
we can say that
[tex]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}{\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x}}[/tex]

in the same way that
[tex]\frac{dy}{du} = \lim_{\Delta u\to0}{\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u}}[/tex]
and
[tex]\frac{du}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}{\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}}[/tex]

Then, using the equation:
[tex]\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u} \cdot \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}[/tex]

we can write

[tex]\frac{dy}{dx} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}(\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u} \cdot \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}) = \lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u}\lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}[/tex]

then it is said that "However because u is a function of x, [tex]\Delta x \rightarrow 0[/tex] exactly when [tex]\Delta u \rightarrow 0[/tex] so

[tex]\lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u} \lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} = \lim_{\Delta u\to0}\frac{\Delta y}{\Delta u}\lim_{\Delta x\to0}\frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x} = \frac{dy}{du} \cdot \frac{du}{dx}[/tex]

And so the chain rule.

The part in red is the one I couldn't understand, specifically why does [tex]\Delta x \rightarrow 0[/tex] exactly when [tex]\Delta u \rightarrow 0[/tex] ?

Sorry for the lengthy post and thanks in advance for any help.

Cheers!


Yes, "u" is a function of "x". This implies that u is dependent on x and x is
an independent variable. Now since u depends on x, any change in x
produces a change in u. But if x does not change, there will be no
"CHANGE" in the dependent variable u.
:)
 
Or,
Δu = Δf(x)
Δu = [3*(x+Δx) - 2] - [3*x - 2]
Δu = 3*Δx
now if Δx→0
then Δu→0.

Hope this helps.
:)
 
cupu said:
The part in red is the one I couldn't understand, specifically why does [tex]\Delta x \rightarrow 0[/tex] exactly when [tex]\Delta u \rightarrow 0[/tex] ?
That particular ##\Delta u## is defined by ##\Delta u=u(x+\Delta x)-u(x)##. Clearly ##\Delta x=0## implies ##\Delta u=0##. The converse implication is explained here. However, I agree with micromass. This isn't the way to prove the chain rule. The problem is that ##\Delta u## is defined as I said when it appears in a numerator but not when it appears in a denominator.

The Wikipedia page has some short proofs, but I think I still prefer to prove it directly from the definitions, without the tricks that are used in the Wikipedia proofs. Unfortunately such a proof is about 2-3 pages long if all the details are explained.
 
Last edited:
@micromass
@spamiam
Thanks for the replies, I've seen other proofs which I've been able to workout on paper and those make sense, I just got really hung up on this specific 'proof' because I couldn't make sense of the red part.

@sahil_time
@Fredrik
Thank you! I though that the 'proof' presented in the book was for the general case and it didn't make sense so I didn't bother to work it out on paper, I can see now it was strictly (well .. more or less) related to the example provided; sorry for wasting your time, it's clear now!

So with that being said, my problem is resolved, the input was great, thanks a lot!

Cheers!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K