3
$\begingroup$

Let $v \equiv F(y, z)$. The partial derivatives of $F$ are $$F_1 \equiv \frac{\partial F(y,z)}{\partial y} = \frac{H(v)}{H(y)},$$ $$F_2 \equiv \frac{\partial F(y,z)}{\partial z} = r\frac{H(v)}{H(z)},$$ where $H$ is an arbitrary function. This is taken from the book Probability Theory by E.T. Jaynes.

The author goes on saying that the relation $ \mathrm{d}v = \mathrm{d}F(y, z) = F_1\mathrm{d}y + F_2\mathrm{d}z$ takes the form of $$\frac{\mathrm{d}v}{H(v)} = \frac{\mathrm{d}y}{H(y)} + r\frac{\mathrm{d}z}{H(z)}$$

or, on integration $$w[F(y, z)] = w(v) = w(y)w^r(z),$$

where $$w(x) \equiv exp\left\{\int^x \frac{\mathrm{d}x}{H(x)}\right\}.$$

I did undergraduate calculus; however, we didn't do this kind of differential manipulation (expansion of $\mathrm{d}v$) and I find it quite confusing. Is there a way to arrive at the same result using "standard" steps like integration by substitution etc.?

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Does it make it less confusing if you think of $w(x)$ as the logarithm? $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Jun 10 '13 at 7:06
  • $\begingroup$ The problem is not so much the $w$ function as the expansion of $\mathrm{d}v$. It passes from being a differential (the principal part of the change in a function) to a variable of integration. $\endgroup$ – John Manak Jun 10 '13 at 7:15
  • $\begingroup$ I hope I made everything clear in my answer! $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Jun 10 '13 at 7:20
4
$\begingroup$

You can try thinking of the equation $$ dv = F_1 dy + F_2 dz $$ in this way : if $y$ and $z$ were to depend on some variable $t$, then $v$ would depend on this variable $t$ as well because $v = F(y,z)$. Therefore, by the chain rule, $$ \frac{dv}{dt} = F_1 \frac{dy}{dt} + r F_2 \frac{dz}{dt} = \frac{H(v)}{H(y)} \frac{dy}{dt} + r \frac{H(v)}{H(z)} \frac{dz}{dt}. $$ By putting $H(v)$ on the left side, you get $$ \frac 1{H(v)} \frac {dv}{dt} = \frac 1{H(y)} \frac{dy}{dt} + r \frac 1{H(z)} \frac{dz}{dt}. $$ Integrate this equation with respect to $t$ : $$ \int \frac 1{H(v)} \frac {dv}{dt} \, dt = \int \frac 1{H(y)} \frac{dy}{dt} \, dt + r \int \frac 1{H(z)} \frac{dz}{dt} \, dt. $$ These three integrals are all 'the same' (besides the fact that the name of the variable changes), and the change of variables is written down for you! Take $v(t)$ as the new variable : $$ \int \frac 1{H(v)} \frac{dv}{dt} \, dt = \int \frac{dv}{H(v)} \overset{def}{=} w(v(t)). $$ In other words, the function $w(v)$ is defined as this integral because we have no general means of computing it. Since we now have $$ w(v(t)) = w(y(t)) + r w(z(t)), $$ writing $v(t) = F(y(t), z(t))$, we are basically done. (Note that we assumed that $H$ was not arbitrary, but rather a non-zero function for which $1/H$ has primitive, and this is a very strong assumption compared to 'arbitrary'!)

Hope that helps,

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, it helps a lot. Just one more thing - you've introduced the new variable $t$ on which both $y$ and $z$ depend. However, initially, the variables $y$ and $z$ were taken to be independent. This is OK? $\endgroup$ – John Manak Jun 10 '13 at 7:32
  • $\begingroup$ @John Nanak - It's okay because the final result depends on $t$ only through $y(t),z(t)$. You should think of this as a path though $y,z$ space parametrized by $t$. The above shows that along any path from one point to another, you can work out how the function changes, and it's independent of the path you choose $\endgroup$ – Sharkos Jun 10 '13 at 9:16
  • $\begingroup$ @John Manak : It's exactly as Sharkos describes. The idea is to understand what happens with $v$ by taking an arbitrary 'smooth path' (i.e. a differentiable parametrization $(y(t), z(t))$) so that you can see what happens with $\frac{dv}{dt}$ to better understand $dv$. That's essentially the point. If everything works out for an arbitrary smooth path, then you're good to go. $\endgroup$ – Patrick Da Silva Jun 10 '13 at 20:42
2
$\begingroup$

This is purely a statement of the chain rule in differential form. See my answer on Understanding the differential $dx$ when doing $u$-substitution for a quick attempt to make people feel a bit better about differential forms.

Mathematically, the right way to think of differential forms is as a map from first-order derivatives to functions - for example, $$\mathrm d v \left(\frac\partial{\partial x}\right) \equiv \frac{\partial v}{\partial x}$$

With this interpretation, it's clear that was is meant by this is that $$v'=v_y y'+v_z z'$$ where subscripts denote partial derivatives, and prime denotes differentiation with respect to any coordinate on a line in the space. Writing $t$ for that coordinate, all that is meant is that $v(y(t),z(t))$ has the above $t$ derivative by the chain rule. I'll leave you to Patrick Da Silva's excellent answer to see how to use this to actually derive the result.

What I wanted to convey is just a sense that the notation does actually mean something rigorous, it's just that it's kept secret until differential geometry!

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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