|
|
| Line 25: |
Line 25: |
| Note the following product relation between difference quotients when measured between any pair of distinct points <math>x = x_1</math> and <math>x = x_2</math>: | | Note the following product relation between difference quotients when measured between any pair of distinct points <math>x = x_1</math> and <math>x = x_2</math>: |
|
| |
|
| <math>\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta x} = \frac{Delta v}{\Delta u} \frac{Delta u}{\Delta x}</math> | | <math>\frac{\Delta v}{\Delta x} = \frac{\Delta v}{\Delta u} \frac{\Delta u}{\Delta x}</math> |
|
| |
|
| In the functional notation, this would read as saying the obvious thing that: | | In the functional notation, this would read as saying the obvious thing that: |
This article describes a proof of the chain rule for differentiation.
Specific point, named functions version
Suppose
and
are functions such that
is differentiable at a point
, and
is differentiable at
. Then the composite
is differentiable at
, and we have:
Pure Leibniz notation version
Suppose
is a function of
and
is a function of
. Then,
Proof
Intuitive proof using the pure Leibniz notation version
The following intuitive proof is not rigorous, but captures the underlying idea:
- Start with the expression
.
- Cancel the
between the denominator and the numerator.
- We are left with
.
First attempt at formalizing the intuition
This again is not a complete proof, but it gets closer:
Note the following product relation between difference quotients when measured between any pair of distinct points
and
:
In the functional notation, this would read as saying the obvious thing that:
Now, set
and let
be some number close enough to
. We get:
Now, take the limit on both sides as
, and we get:
Since
is differentiable at
,
is continuous at
as well (using the fact that differentiable implies continuous) and thus the first limit on the right side can be taken as:
The three limits are now definitionally derivatives, so we get:
In the
-notation, we are simply taking the appropriate limits on
and getting that:
Fixing the bug in the proof
The proof above is correct in essentials, but has one bug -- namely, the issue that
may be equal to zero for
, making the difference quotient
undefined at these points. This is not an issue if this happens only at finitely many points, because we can take the limit close enough. It does become an issue, however, if
at points
arbitrarily close to
.
The solution to those problem is to replace the expression
by the expression:
In other words, we fill in the removable discontinuity before plugging it into the product expression. If we use this expression instead, the proof becomes rigorous.
Here is the full rigorous proof. Fill this in later