Why does f = g in implicit equations?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter etotheipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Functions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the relationship between implicit equations and the functions defined within them, specifically examining the assertion that \( f = g \) in the context of an implicit equation of the form \( g(y) = f(x) \). Participants explore the implications of this relationship and the conditions under which it holds, focusing on theoretical and mathematical reasoning.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the assertion that \( f = g \), noting that \( f \) and \( g \) represent different sets and may not share the same domain.
  • Another participant emphasizes that \( g(y) = y \) explicitly, suggesting a misunderstanding of the functions' definitions.
  • A later reply indicates that the implicit differentiation is valid, but the remark equating \( f \) and \( g \) is confusing and should be disregarded.
  • Another participant proposes that if \( f \) and \( g \) are treated as equivalent along a parametrized curve, they can have the same value, but this does not imply they are identical functions.
  • Some participants express uncertainty about the implications of the final remark regarding \( f = g \) and suggest that it may be a mistake or misinterpretation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the assertion that \( f = g \). There are multiple competing views regarding the definitions and relationships of the functions involved, and the discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

There are potential limitations in the assumptions made about the domains of \( f \) and \( g \), as well as the implications of their equality in the context of implicit differentiation. The discussion highlights the need for clarity in definitions and the conditions under which the functions are considered equivalent.

etotheipi
TL;DR
N/A
I saw something in my notes that I didn't understand... we have ##y=f(x)##, and consider an implicit equation of the form ##g(y) = f(x)##. They then say that ##f=g##. Why is that true? I would have thought$$f = \{ (a,f(a)) : a\in \mathbb{R} \} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$$whilst ##g## is just$$g = \{ (a,a) : a\in \mathbb{R} \} \subseteq \mathbb{R}^2$$What am I missing? Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I can't make much sense of that. Explicitly ##g(y) = y##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
PeroK said:
I can't make much sense of that. Explicitly ##g(y) = y##.

Thanks, I presumed it was a mistake of some variety but wanted to check!
 
g and f are not identical. They do not necessarily even have the same domain. If f(x) == 1, then all we know is that g(1)=1. g is undefined for all other input values.
 
Can you post an image of this section in your notes or type out exactly what it says? There might be hidden assumptions.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
It's essentially:
"It is also possible to differentiate an expression of the form ##g(y) = f(x)## with respect to ##x##,$$\frac{dg(y)}{dy} \frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{df}{dx}$$Rearranging, we find that the implicit function ##g(y) = f(x)## gives$$\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{df}{dx}/\frac{dg}{dy}$$Since the function is defined with ##f=g##, this looks like we are simply computing the quotient of two quotients."
The implicit differentiation is fine, but that final remark caught me a little off guard...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
etotheipi said:
It's essentially:The implicit differentiation is fine, but that final remark caught me a little off guard...

Yeah, that final remark looks weird. I would just ignore it.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
etotheipi said:
It's essentially:The implicit differentiation is fine, but that final remark caught me a little off guard...
The last remark doesn't make a lot of sense. If we invert the latter derivative we have:
$$\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{df}{dx}\frac{dy}{dg}$$ which looks like the chain rule, if we allow the association ##f \leftrightarrow g##.

I.e. if we imagine parametrising a curve ##x(t), y(t)##, then ##f## and ##g## have the same value on the curve:
$$\hat g(t) \equiv g(y(t)) = f(x(t)) \equiv \hat f(t)$$ and ##\hat f = \hat g##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi
I agree you can ignore it the rest of the statement is true anyway even if you just delete the f=g part?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: etotheipi

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K