Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Consider $F(x,y,z,w)=0$ and $G(x,y,z,w)=0$ . Why $(\frac{\partial x}{\partial z})_w$= -$\frac{\frac{\partial (F,G)}{\partial (z,y)}}{\frac{\partial (F,G)}{\partial (x,y)}}$.Noted that the $(\frac{\partial x}{\partial z})_w$= -$\frac{\frac{\partial (F,G)}{\partial (z,y)}}{\frac{\partial (F,G)}{\partial (x,y)}}$=-$\frac{F_3G_2-F_2G_3}{F_1G_2-F_2G_1}$

share|improve this question
    
What do you mean by $\left ( \frac {\partial x}{\partial z} \right )_w$ and $\frac{(\partial F,G)}{(\partial x,y)}$? –  Florian Jan 11 '12 at 9:12
    
Why do you think it is true? –  Fabian Jan 11 '12 at 9:33
    
F and G are 2 function with variable xy z w and $(\frac{\partial x}{\partial Z})_w$ means we may find $(\frac{\partial x}{\partial Z})$ while setting w as a constant in the 2 function –  Mathematics Jan 11 '12 at 9:36
    
That's shown in the textbook but i dont quite understand –  Mathematics Jan 11 '12 at 9:37
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 1 down vote accepted

The two equations $F(x,y,z,w_0)=0$, $\ G(x,y,z,w_0)=0$ define a curve $\gamma$ in the three-dimensional $(x,y,z)$-plane $w=w_0$ of ${\mathbb R}^4$. This curve should have a parametrization $$\gamma:\quad z\mapsto \bigl(x(z),y(z),z, w_0\bigr)\qquad \qquad (z_0-h<z<z_0+h)\ ,$$ valid in the neighborhood of some "regular" point $(x_0,y_0,z_0,w_0)$. Since $$F\bigl(x(z),y(z),z,w_0\bigr)\equiv0\ ,\qquad G\bigl(x(z),y(z),z,w_0\bigr)\equiv0\ ,$$ taking the derivative with respect to $z$ gives $$F_x x'(z)+F_y y'(z) + F_z=0\ , \qquad G_x x'(z)+G_y y'(z) + G_z=0\ .$$ We now solve for $x'(z)$ and obtain $$x'(z)=-{F_z G_y-G_z F_y \over F_x G_y-G_x F_y}=-{\det\left[{\partial(F,G)\over\partial(z,y)}\right] \over\det\left[{\partial(F,G)\over\partial(x,y)}\right]}\ .$$ In response to a comment by the OP: Here we had $r=3$ equations (incl. $w=w_0$) in $n=4$ variables, so there was one degree of freedom (the $z$ variable). In general you would have $r$ equations in $n$ variables and $d=n-r$ degrees of freedom. If you want explicit formulae you would have to declare beforehand which $d$ variables should be considered as the independent ones. Look at it this way: There is no explicit formula for the solution set of a rank $r$ homogeneous linear system in $n$ unknowns.

share|improve this answer
    
the question is i dont think that it is just coincident to get $\frac{\frac{\partial (F,G)}{\partial (z,y)}}{\frac{\partial (F,G)}{\partial (x,y)}}$ as the answer and i think it applies to all similar cases but why? –  Mathematics Jan 11 '12 at 11:18
    
Is it true to apply the same step(i.e.$-{\det\left[{\partial(F,G)\over\partial(z,y)}\right] \over\det\left[{\partial(F,G)\over\partial(x,y)}\right]}$) to calculate for the case like n variables –  Mathematics Jan 11 '12 at 11:51
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.