2
$\begingroup$

I'm reading a proof and I'm struggling with basic calculus here. Given the equation, $F[x, F(y, z)] = F[F(x, y), z] $ set $u = F(x, y)$ and $v = F(y, z)$ so you have

$F(x, v) = F(u, z)$

Now differentiate with respect to $x$ and $y$ leads to the following

  1. $F_{x}(x,v) = F_{x}(u,z)F_{x}(x,y)$
  2. $F_{y}(x,v)F_{x}(y,z) = F_{x}(u,z)F_{y}(x,y)$

I think, according to the chain rule, the derivative of $F[x, F(y, z)]$ or $F[x, u]$ with respect to x should equal $F_{x}(u,z)F_{x}(x,y)$. So number 1 makes sense. But when you differentiate that with respect to $y$, I don't understand how you get 2.

2 Answers 2

2

You are given that $F(x,F(y,z)) = F(F(x,y),z)$ Calling $F(x,y) = u$ and $F(y,z) = v$, we then have that $F(x,v) = F(u,z)$ Differentiating $F(x,v) = F(u,z)$ with respect to $x$, gives us $\dfrac{\partial F(x,v)}{\partial x} + \dfrac{\partial F(x,v)}{\partial v} \underbrace{\dfrac{\partial v}{\partial x}}_{0} = \dfrac{\partial F(u,z)}{\partial u} \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial x} + \dfrac{\partial F(u,z)}{\partial z} \underbrace{\dfrac{\partial z}{\partial x}}_{0}$ Hence, you get the first equation i.e. $F_x(x,v) = F_u(u,z)u_x = F_u(u,z)F_x(x,y)$ Differentiating $F(x,v) = F(u,z)$ with respect to $y$, gives us $\underbrace{\dfrac{\partial F(x,v)}{\partial y}}_{0} + \dfrac{\partial F(x,v)}{\partial v} \dfrac{\partial v}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial F(u,z)}{\partial u} \dfrac{\partial u}{\partial y} + \dfrac{\partial F(u,z)}{\partial z} \underbrace{\dfrac{\partial z}{\partial y}}_{0}$ Hence, you get the second equation i.e. $F_v(x,v)v_y = F_u(u,z)u_y$ $F_v(x,v)F_y(y,z) = F_u(u,z)F_y(x,y)$

  • 0
    thanks! In both equations, you used Fv and Fu instead of Fx and Fy. Why? Does it make a difference?2012-10-21
2

You seem to have a typo; I presume you meant $F(x,v)$ where it says $F[x,u]$?

You don't get 2. by differenitating 1. with respect to $y$, but by differentiating the original equation, $F(x,v)=F(u,z)$, with respect to $y$.