2
$\begingroup$

I $\def\d{\mathrm d}\def\p{\partial}$am going to ask everyone to switch their paradigms to that of the real line. I am looking for a "lowbrow" explanation of the following phenomena.

I am talking about the popular method of differentiating functions like $x^x$. First, use the ordinary power rule, then use the exponential rule and then add them together.

$$(x^x)' = x\cdot x^{x-1} + x^x\log(x) = x^x(1+\log(x))$$

Although poorly justified, the result and the method is absolutely correct. From the multivariable chain rule, it can be said that if $y$ depends on functions $f$ and $g$ then

$$\frac{\d y}{\d x} = \frac{\p y}{\p f}\! \frac{\d f}{\d x} + \frac{\p y}{\p g}\! \frac{\d g}{\d x}$$

In our instance, we had $y = f(x)^{g(x)}$ where $f(x) = x$ and $g(x) = x$.

This phenomena can provide simple justification for other rules of differentiation such as the product rule. Assuming this rule, even the generalized product rule is immediately obvious.

I am asking for a way to justify the following statement without explicitly using multivariate calculus beyond partial derivatives.

Theorem: If $f(x)$ can be written explicitly with $n$ instances of $x$ then one may label each of the $x$'s from $x_1\!$ to $x_n$ and then compute $f'(x)$ as follows. $$f'(x) = \sum_{k=1}^{n} \frac{\p f}{\p x_k}$$ And then setting each of the $x_j = x$.

The proof of this need not be formal but I am not looking for anything that treats differentials as fractions. Does anyone have any ideas?

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ This is a neat observation. $\endgroup$ – user14972 Jul 11 '14 at 14:15
2
$\begingroup$

Denote $f$ with "$n$ instances labeled" as $F(x_1, \ldots, x_n)$. Hence we have $F(x,\ldots, x) = f(x)$. Then \begin{align*} f(x+h) - f(x) &= F(x+h, \ldots, x+h) - F(x,\ldots, x)\\ &= \sum_{k=1}^n F(\underbrace{x+h, \ldots, x+h}_{k}, x,\ldots, x) - F(\underbrace{x+h, \ldots, x+h}_{k-1}, x,\ldots, x) \end{align*} Hence $$ \frac{f(x+h) - f(x)}h = \sum_{k=1}^n \frac{ F(\overbrace{x+h, \ldots, x+h}^{k}, x,\ldots, x) - F(\overbrace{x+h, \ldots, x+h}^{k-1}, x,\ldots, x)}h $$ If now $F$ is continuously differentiable, the result follows for $h \to 0$.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ Is that a different definition of the partial derivative? I am used to something that looks more like $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x_i}(a_1,\ldots,a_n) = \lim_{h \to 0}\frac{f(a_1,\ldots,a_i+h,\ldots,a_n) - f(a_1,\ldots, a_i, \dots,a_n)}{h}$$ $\endgroup$ – user147887 Jul 11 '14 at 14:38
  • $\begingroup$ You said that you do not need a formal proof. One of course has to show that the quotients converge to the partial derivatives of $F$ at $(x,\ldots, x)$. $\endgroup$ – martini Jul 11 '14 at 14:47
  • $\begingroup$ I am just wondering whether or not the quotient you wrote is commonly used to define partial derivatives. $\endgroup$ – user147887 Jul 11 '14 at 14:50
  • $\begingroup$ No, it's not. But for "nice enough" $f$ it should converge to the partial derivative. $\endgroup$ – martini Jul 11 '14 at 14:56
1
$\begingroup$

In other words, you are expressing $f(x)$ as

$$ f(x) = g(x, x, \ldots, x) $$

and then differentiating both sides with respect to $x$ gives, using the multivariable chain rule,

$$ f'(x) = \sum_{i=1}^n g_i(x, x, \ldots, x) $$

as desired, where $g_i$ means the derivative of $g$ in its $i$-th argument. (I greatly prefer this notation to the usual partial-derivative notation)

(is this what you're looking for, or were you instead looking for a justification of the multivariable chain rule?)


As an aside, if you allow the use of differentials, then your original description can be given more literally:

$$ \mathrm{d} g(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_n) = \sum_i g_i(x_1, x_2, \ldots, x_ n) \mathrm{d} x_i $$

and then because differentials respect equations among the variables, imposing the equations $x_i = x$ (and thus $\mathrm{d}x_i = \mathrm{d}x$) gives the differentiation rule you're looking for, using the facts that $\mathrm{d}f(x) = f'(x) \mathrm{d}x$ and that $g(x) \mathrm{d}x = 0$ implies $g(x) = 0$.

$\endgroup$

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.