Today, I had a strange idea while doing implicit derivatives. Is there a way to find an implicit derivative using partial derivatives? I did some examples with functions and I studied the result with an exception but I'm struggling on the part where I want to prove that it woks for all kind of functions. Here's what I've come up with :
xy3+ysinx=x2+cosy
With the regular implicit derivative I obtain :
dxdy=3xy2+sinx+siny2x−y3−ycosx
With partial I decided to put z as a function of x and y then find the derivative with respect to both variables and then use an identity to get ∂x∂y
z=x2+cosy−xy3−ysinx∂y∂z=−siny−3xy2−sinx∂x∂z=2x−y3−ycosx∂x∂y=∂z∂y∂x∂z∂x∂y=−siny−3xy2−sinx2x−y3−ycosx
Then I see that the only difference is a -1. I thought that maybe this is true:
−∂x∂y=dxdy
For the method I used.For an equation of this type I found that it holds:
f(x)=g(y)dxdf(x)=dxdydydg(y)dxdy=dxdg(y)dydf(x)z=g(y)−f(x)∂x∂z=−dxdf(x)∂y∂z=dydg(y)∂x∂y=−dxdg(y)dydf(x)−∂x∂y=dxdy
I've never followed any courses on partial so maybe some operations I did in this are not correct. I would really like to know if it's true, and if not then maybe where did I go wrong.
#HelpMe!
#Advice
#Math
#Opinions
Easy Math Editor
This discussion board is a place to discuss our Daily Challenges and the math and science related to those challenges. Explanations are more than just a solution — they should explain the steps and thinking strategies that you used to obtain the solution. Comments should further the discussion of math and science.
When posting on Brilliant:
*italics*
or_italics_
**bold**
or__bold__
paragraph 1
paragraph 2
[example link](https://brilliant.org)
> This is a quote
\(
...\)
or\[
...\]
to ensure proper formatting.2 \times 3
2^{34}
a_{i-1}
\frac{2}{3}
\sqrt{2}
\sum_{i=1}^3
\sin \theta
\boxed{123}
Comments
Your problem lies with the line where you write ∂x∂y=∂z∂y∂x∂z Once you have functions of more than one variable, the chain rule becomes more complicated.
For example, if we have z=z(x,y) and we can write x=x(u1,…,um) and y=y(u1,…,um) as functions of u1,…,um, then z can be regarded as a function of u1,…,um. The chain rule tells us that ∂uj∂z=∂x∂z∂uj∂x+∂y∂z∂uj∂y for any 1≤j≤m.
The m=1 case of the chain rule works for you here. We are looking at an equation of the form z(x,y)=0 where y is a function of x. This means that z can be regarded as a function of x alone as well as a function of x,y. Since x,y are both functions of x alone, partial derivatives can be replaced by ordinary derivatives (there are no other variables to keep constant!), and so ∂x∂x=dxdx=1∂x∂y=dxdy The chain rule now tells us that 0=dxdz=∂x∂z∂x∂x+∂y∂z∂x∂y=∂x∂z+∂y∂zdxdy(⋆) and hence we deduce that dxdy=−∂x∂z(∂y∂z)−1 and the minus sign appears automatically. What is going on in equation (⋆) is what you naturally write down when performing implicit differentiation.
Log in to reply
Thanks a lot! I didn't the chain rule had to be modified. This makes it way more clear and now I see why I'm obtain these results. Thanks again!