understanding about directional derivative

bingliantech

New member
Joined
Jan 8, 2014
Messages
5
I am learing directional derivative and one context in the book puzzle me, i know delta f should be divided by delta s not delta x when we use directional derivative,but i really can't understand the explain in the book.

13.5 Directional Derivatives and Gradients

As \(\displaystyle x\) changes, we know how \(\displaystyle f(x,\, y)\) changes. The partial derivative \(\displaystyle \partial f/\partial x\) treats \(\displaystyle y\) as constant. Similarly \(\displaystyle \partial f/\partial y\) keeps \(\displaystyle x\) constant and gives the slope in the \(\displaystyle y\) direction. But east-west and north-south are not the only directions to move. We could go along a 45° line, where \(\displaystyle \Delta x\, =\, \Delta y\). In principle, before we draw axes, no direction is preferred. The graph is a surface with slopes in all directions.

On that surface, calculus looks for the rate of change (or the slope). There is a directional derivative, whatever the direction. In the 45° case we are inclined to divide \(\displaystyle \Delta f\) by \(\displaystyle \Delta x\), but we would be wrong.

Let me state the problem. We are given \(\displaystyle f(x,\, y)\) around a point \(\displaystyle P\, =\, (x_0,\, y_0)\). We are also given a direction u (a unit vector). There must be a natural definition of \(\displaystyle D_u f\) — the derivative of f in the direction u. To compute this slope at \(\displaystyle P\), we need a formula. Preferably the formula is based on \(\displaystyle \partial f/\partial x\) and \(\displaystyle \partial f/\partial y\), which we already know.

Note that the 45° direction has u \(\displaystyle \, =\, \) i\(\displaystyle /\sqrt{2}\, +\, \) j\(\displaystyle /\sqrt{2}\). This shows that the square root of \(\displaystyle 2\) is going to enter the derivative. This shows that dividing \(\displaystyle \Delta f\) by \(\displaystyle \Delta x\) is wrong. We should divide by the step length \(\displaystyle \Delta s\).

The red-highlighted part is where I'm wondering "Why?". Anyone can help me ?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Consider that x and y are both independent variables now. You might ask the same question here as "why not divide by delta-y?". The directional derivative tells you the rate of change of f with respect to a given direction, not the rate of change with respect to x (unless it is in the direction u=1i+0j, i.e. as the point moves parallel to the x-axis in the positive direction). "\(\displaystyle \Delta x\)" is only one piece of the puzzle, change in location in the plane has both delta-x's and delta-y's.

In single-variable calculus, one only considers "the" derivative in the direction of the positive x-axis but it is still a directional derivative. That is, f'(a) (if it exists and isn't zero) tells you what the function is about to do at x=a when x moves ​to the right: go up, or go down. But you can also formulate a second version of the derivative in the opposite direction! As the real line only has two directions, left and right, these are the only two possibilities. In the plane however, there are an infinite number of directions one must consider, hence the formal treatment.

edit: I should mention that the derivative in single-variable calculus is actually a function and should be treated that way. The symbol f'(a) can have two interpretations in ordinary calculus, both as the value of a function and a real number which tells how its antiderivative is changing as x moves in the positive direction, but they coincide numerically. In multivariable calculus, the derivative of a function is a matrix (or vector), where as the directional derivative is a number. So f'(a) (or the Jacobian or Grad f(a) as I mean it, there are other "derivatives") has the first interpretation, the derivative matrix evaluated at a point, but this no longer has the same meaning as the single-variable derivative in the second interpretation. You must take the dot product of f'(a) and your direction vector u to learn what is happening in that particular direction.
 
Last edited:
Daon2,it's very kind of you,thank you for your excellent explanation and your good advice.Also thank staple for his help,i am not familiar with the edit tool.Which puzzle me is the sentence "This shows that the square root of [FONT=MathJax_Main]2[/FONT] is going to enter the derivative. This shows that dividing [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT] by [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT] is wrong",i can get [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT] should be divided by [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]s[/FONT].But i can't understand the reason in the red part.
 
Last edited:
Daon2,it's very kind of you,thank you for your excellent explanation and your good advice.Also thank staple for his help,i am not familiar with the edit tool.Which puzzle me is the sentence "This shows that the square root of [FONT=MathJax_Main]2[/FONT] is going to enter the derivative. This shows that dividing [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT] by [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT] is wrong",i can get [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT] should be divided by [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]s[/FONT].But i can't understand the reason in the red part.

I thought that is what I explained. \(\displaystyle \Delta x\) only measures (by definition) change in x. But there's also a change in the second ordinate to consider. I wouldn't have bothered even stating " This shows that dividing [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT] by [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT] is wrong"

The following limit is not "\(\displaystyle f'(x,y)\)" but instead is \(\displaystyle D_u f(x,y)=\nabla_u f\) where \(\displaystyle u = 1i+0j\).

\(\displaystyle \displaystyle \lim_{\Delta x\to 0} \dfrac{f(x+\Delta x, y) - f(x,y)}{\Delta x}\)

It is also called (in this special case) the partial derivative of f with respect to x. This is not the derivative.
 
I thought that is what I explained. \(\displaystyle \Delta x\) only measures (by definition) change in x. But there's also a change in the second ordinate to consider. I wouldn't have bothered even stating " This shows that dividing [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT] by [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT] is wrong"

The following limit is not "\(\displaystyle f'(x,y)\)" but instead is \(\displaystyle D_u f(x,y)=\nabla_u f\) where \(\displaystyle u = 1i+0j\).

\(\displaystyle \displaystyle \lim_{\Delta x\to 0} \dfrac{f(x+\Delta x, y) - f(x,y)}{\Delta x}\)

It is also called (in this special case) the partial derivative of f with respect to x. This is not the derivative.
I can understand you well because you give me a quite clear explanation.
Maybe the authour want to say "if we divide △f by △x , we will get root 2* △f/△s for limit,so only △f/△s is right" in the last pragragh.If so i think the problem is i am not customed with the way author to explain in the last paragragh.
 
As [FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT] changes, we know how [FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]([/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main],[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]y[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main])[/FONT] changes. The partial derivative [FONT=MathJax_Main]∂[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]∂[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT] treats [FONT=MathJax_Math]y[/FONT] as constant. Similarly [FONT=MathJax_Main]∂[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]f[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]/[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]∂[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]y[/FONT] keeps [FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT] constant and gives the slope in the [FONT=MathJax_Math]y[/FONT] direction. But east-west and north-south are not the only directions to move. We could go along a 45° line, where [FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]x[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]=[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Main]Δ[/FONT][FONT=MathJax_Math]y[/FONT]. In principle, before we draw axes, no direction is preferred. The graph is a surface with slopes in all directions.
This may well be a useless positing for you. If so please ignore it.
But i have written text material on vector calculus.

Directional derivatives are usually dealt with using parametric equations along a line.
Now \(\displaystyle f\) is vector field . For your we could say that \(\displaystyle f(x,y)=x+xe^y\) for example.

At the point \(\displaystyle P: (x_0,y_0)\) and direction \(\displaystyle \vec{u}=\left\langle {\frac{{\sqrt 2 }}{2},\frac{{\sqrt 2 }}{2}} \right\rangle \), that is at a \(\displaystyle 45^o\).

Now \(\displaystyle \displaystyle {D_u}\left[ {f(P)} \right] = {\lim _{t \to 0}}\frac{{f(P + t\vec{u}) - f(P)}}{t}\)
 
Thank you for all the reply,yes,it's not be worth to think hard,and maybe the statement just want to approve "In the 45" case we are inclined to divide Af by Ax, but we would be wrong." this assumption.I did't have his inclination completely,so i can't understand his opinion.
 
Top