MHB Yes, that makes sense! Thank you for explaining it to me.

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the differentiation of the equation \(\phi(x,y) = 0\) and the confusion surrounding the application of the chain rule. The original poster questions their derivation of \(\phi_x \frac{dx}{dy} + \phi_y \frac{dy}{dx} = 0\), which is critiqued as mixing differentiation with respect to both variables. Clarifications are provided that the correct approach involves taking the differential of both sides, leading to \(\phi_x dx + \phi_y dy = 0\). The distinction between taking differentials and differentiation is emphasized, with an analogy to the relationship between \(y\) and \(f(x)\). The conversation concludes with an affirmation of understanding the concept of taking differentials in this context.
bugatti79
Messages
786
Reaction score
4
Hi Folks,

It is been given that differentiation of \phi(x,y)=0 is \phi_{x} dx+ \phi_{y} dy=0 however I arrive at

\phi_{x} dx/dy+ \phi_{y} dy/dx=0 via the chain rule. Where \phi_{x}=d \phi/dx etc

What am I doing wrong?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
What are you differentiating $\phi$ with respect to? Your equation
$$\phi_x \, \frac{dx}{dy}+\phi_y \, \frac{dy}{dx}=0$$
looks schizophrenic - as if you're simultaneously trying to differentiate w.r.t. $x$ and $y$.
 
Ackbach said:
What are you differentiating $\phi$ with respect to? Your equation
$$\phi_x \, \frac{dx}{dy}+\phi_y \, \frac{dy}{dx}=0$$
looks schizophrenic - as if you're simultaneously trying to differentiate w.r.t. $x$ and $y$.

Hi, I am referring to eqn 3.2.9 in attached
 

Attachments

  • Implicit 1.jpg
    Implicit 1.jpg
    26.2 KB · Views: 102
I would say that $\phi_x \, dx+\phi_y \, dy=0$ is really taking the differential of both sides. If you wanted to differentiate w.r.t. $x$, then you would get
$$\phi_x+\phi_y \, \frac{dy}{dx}=0,$$
and if w.r.t. $y$, you'd get
$$\phi_x \, \frac{dx}{dy}+\phi_y=0.$$

Does that answer your question?
 
Ackbach said:
I would say that $\phi_x \, dx+\phi_y \, dy=0$ is really taking the differential of both sides. If you wanted to differentiate w.r.t. $x$, then you would get
$$\phi_x+\phi_y \, \frac{dy}{dx}=0,$$
and if w.r.t. $y$, you'd get
$$\phi_x \, \frac{dx}{dy}+\phi_y=0.$$

Does that answer your question?

I think the last 2 equations are coming from the chain rule so yes I can see that.

However, not sure how one arrives at the first equation 3.2.9 by differentiating "both sides"?

Thanks
 
bugatti79 said:
I think the last 2 equations are coming from the chain rule so yes I can see that.

However, not sure how one arrives at the first equation 3.2.9 by differentiating "both sides"?

Thanks

It was slightly sloppy wording, in my view. They're really "taking the differential" of both sides. Imagine that $y=f(x)$. If you "took the differential" of both sides, you'd get $dy=f'(x) \, dx$, right? This is not, strictly speaking, differentiation. It's taking the differential. If you were to differentiate, you'd get $y'=f'(x)$.

So, taking the differential of $\phi(x,y)=0$ amounts to doing $\phi_x \, dx+ \phi_y \, dy=0$ in a similar fashion. Does that make sense?
 
  • Like
Likes bugatti79
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
14K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K