User:IssaRice/Chain rule proofs: Difference between revisions
| Line 127: | Line 127: | ||
So we can instead define | So we can instead define | ||
<math display="block">\phi( | <math display="block">\phi(y) := \begin{cases}\frac{g(y) - g(f(x_0))}{y - f(x_0)} & \text{if }y \ne f(x_0) \\ g'(f(x_0)) & \text{if } y = f(x_0)\end{cases}</math> | ||
The idea is that we want to say <math>\frac{g(f(x_n)) - g(f(x_0))}{f(x_n) - f(x_0)}</math> is going to <math>g'(f(x_0))</math>, so we just define it at the undefined points to already be at that limit. | The idea is that we want to say <math>\frac{g(f(x_n)) - g(f(x_0))}{f(x_n) - f(x_0)}</math> is going to <math>g'(f(x_0))</math>, so we just define it at the undefined points to already be at that limit. | ||
| Line 133: | Line 133: | ||
Now we have | Now we have | ||
<math display="block">\frac{g(f(x_n)) - g(f(x_0))}{x_n - x_0} = \phi(x_n) \cdot \frac{f(x_n) - f(x_0)}{x_n - x_0}</math> | <math display="block">\frac{g(f(x_n)) - g(f(x_0))}{x_n - x_0} = \phi(f(x_n)) \cdot \frac{f(x_n) - f(x_0)}{x_n - x_0}</math> | ||
for all <math>x_n</math>. | for all <math>x_n</math>. | ||
Differentiability of <math>g</math> at <math>f(x_0)</math> says that if <math>(y_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> is a sequence in <math>Y \setminus \{y_0\}</math>, then <math>\frac{g(y_n) - g(f(x_0))}{y_n - f(x_0)} \to g'(f(x_0))</math> as <math>y_n \to f(x_0)</math>. What if <math>(y_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> is instead a sequence in <math>Y</math>? | Differentiability of <math>g</math> at <math>f(x_0)</math> says that if <math>(y_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> is a sequence in <math>Y \setminus \{y_0\}</math>, then <math>\frac{g(y_n) - g(f(x_0))}{y_n - f(x_0)} \to g'(f(x_0))</math> as <math>y_n \to f(x_0)</math>. What if <math>(y_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> is instead a sequence in <math>Y</math>? Then we can say <math>\phi(y_n) \to g'(f(x_0))</math> as <math>n\to\infty</math>. | ||
But differentiability of <math>f</math> at <math>x_0</math> implies ''continuity'' of <math>f</math> at <math>x_0</math>, so this means that <math>f(x_n) \to f(x_0)</math> as <math>x_n \to x_0</math>. So we can use <math>(f(x_n))_{n=1}^\infty</math> as our sequence to conclude that as <math>x_n \to x_0</math> we have <math>\phi(x_n) \to g'(f(x_0))</math>. | But differentiability of <math>f</math> at <math>x_0</math> implies ''continuity'' of <math>f</math> at <math>x_0</math>, so this means that <math>f(x_n) \to f(x_0)</math> as <math>x_n \to x_0</math>. So we can use <math>(f(x_n))_{n=1}^\infty</math> as our sequence to conclude that as <math>x_n \to x_0</math> we have <math>\phi(f(x_n)) \to g'(f(x_0))</math>. | ||
Now by the limit laws | Now by the limit laws | ||
<math display="block">\begin{align}\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{g(f(x_n)) - g(f(x_0))}{x_n - x_0} &= \left(\lim_{n \to \infty}\phi(x_n)\right) \left(\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{f(x_n) - f(x_0)}{x_n - x_0}\right) \\ &= g'(f(x_0)) f'(x_0)\end{align}</math> | <math display="block">\begin{align}\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{g(f(x_n)) - g(f(x_0))}{x_n - x_0} &= \left(\lim_{n \to \infty}\phi(f(x_n))\right) \left(\lim_{n \to \infty} \frac{f(x_n) - f(x_0)}{x_n - x_0}\right) \\ &= g'(f(x_0)) f'(x_0)\end{align}</math> | ||
Since the sequence <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> was arbitrary, we can conclude that <math>\lim_{x\to x_0;\, x \in X\setminus\{x_0\}} \frac{g(f(x)) - g(f(x_0))}{x - x_0} = g'(f(x_0)) f'(x_0)</math>. | Since the sequence <math>(x_n)_{n=1}^\infty</math> was arbitrary, we can conclude that <math>\lim_{x\to x_0;\, x \in X\setminus\{x_0\}} \frac{g(f(x)) - g(f(x_0))}{x - x_0} = g'(f(x_0)) f'(x_0)</math>. | ||
Revision as of 22:11, 28 November 2018
Using Newton's approximation
Main idea
The main idea of using Newton's approximation to prove the chain rule is that since f is differentiable at we have the approximation when is near . Similarly since g is differentiable at we have the approximation when is near . Since f is differentiable at , it is continuous there also, so we know that is near whenever is near . This allows us to substitute into whenever is near . So we get
Thus we get , which is what the chain rule says.
Proof
We want to show is differentiable at with derivative . By Newton's approximation, this is equivalent to showing that for every there exists such that
whenever . So let .
Now we do some algebraic manipulation. Write
where . This holds for every . Since we thus have
Similarly write
where .
Substituting the expression for in the expression for we get
we can rewrite this as
Thus our goal now is to show .
But by the triangle inequality it suffices to show .
where we are free to choose .
To get the bound for (using Newton's approximation), we need to make sure is small. But by continuity of at we can do this.
where again we are free to choose .
TODO: can we do this same proof but without using the error term notation?
TODO: somehow Folland does this without explicitly using continuity of f; i need to understand if he's using it implicitly somehow or he's actually proving it when bounding using
old proof
Since is differentiable at , we know is a real number, and we can write
(there is no magic: the terms just cancel out)
If we define we can write
Newton's approximation says that as long as .
Since is differentiable at , we know that it must be continuous at . This means we can keep as long as we keep .
Since and , this means we can substitute and get
Now we use the differentiability of . We can write
Again, we can define and write this as
Now we can substitute this into the expression for to get
where we have canceled out two terms using .
Thus we have
We can write this as
where . Now the left hand side looks like the expression in Newton's approximation. This means to show is differentiable at , we just need to show that .
The stuff in square brackets is our "error term" for . Now we just need to make sure it is small, even after dividing by .
But f is differentiable at , so by Newton's approximation,
we also have
We can bound this from above using the triangle inequality:
Now we can just choose small enough.
Limits of sequences
Basic idea:
Let be a sequence that converges to .
Now use the limit laws to conclude that the limit is .
The problem is that can be zero even when .
So we can instead define
The idea is that we want to say is going to , so we just define it at the undefined points to already be at that limit.
Now we have
for all .
Differentiability of at says that if is a sequence in , then as . What if is instead a sequence in ? Then we can say as .
But differentiability of at implies continuity of at , so this means that as . So we can use as our sequence to conclude that as we have .
Now by the limit laws
Since the sequence was arbitrary, we can conclude that .
TODO: Tao says that division by zero occurs when , which seems strange to me.