Proof of the Chain Rule
By Louise Johnson on Wednesday, September
19, 2001 - 09:00 pm:
Where can I find the proof that dy/dx can be treated as a
fraction?
By David Loeffler on Monday, October 01,
2001 - 09:56 am:
It can't. You have to prove the chain rule by entirely
different methods; although the initial premises and the end
result may look like you've treated it as a fraction, in
fact you haven't. If that makes sense.
David
By Louise Johnson on Friday, October 05,
2001 - 07:21 pm:
It does. Thankyou. Still where can I find the proof?
By Tristan Marshall on Thursday, October
11, 2001 - 03:34 pm:
Ok, here goes:
If u=g(x) define du/dx as: the limit as dx® 0 of:
g(x+dx)-g(x))/dx
You should have seen this definition before. The key is the precise meaning
of 'limit'. Here it means that, for a given value of x, the above
expression can be made as close as we like to x. (This is, roughly,
the precise definition of 'limit')
More precisely, given e > 0, we can find dx such that the
above expression is within e of du/dx.
From now on I'll write g ' (x) for du/dx etc.
Ok, now for the proof:
Let u=g(x), y=f(u). We want to prove that
dy/dx=(dy/du).(du/dx)
Let dx be a change in x, and du and dy be the
corresponding changes in u and y.
By playing around with the limit expression above, we get:
du=(g ' (x)+e)dx
where e depends on x and dx and ® 0 as dx® 0.
Similarly for y:
dy=(f ' (u)+e ' )du
where, as before, e ' ® 0 as du® 0.
Combining this with the expression for du, we have:
dy=(f ' (u)+e ' )(g ' (x)+e)dx
NOTE: This expression is EXACT, once e and e ' have been
found, and these are uniquely defined by the value of dx.
So now divide both sides by dx and let dx® 0. We get:
dy/dx=(dy/du).(du/dx)
I hope that helps.
By Louise Johnson on Tuesday, October 30,
2001 - 10:53 pm:
wonderful