The Derivative: From Difference Quotients to the Chain Rule
Prerequisite:Limits and Continuity: Reading ε-δ as a Contract on Error
0. Key points
Section titled “0. Key points”- The derivative is the limit of the difference quotient as . The order of operations — divide first, then pass to the limit — is what matters; it is precisely how the difficulty of the indeterminate form is avoided.
- Differentiability is equivalent to the statement that the error committed in approximating by the linear expression tends to faster than does. This reformulation is the gateway to the several-variable theory.
- Differentiability implies continuity. The converse fails, and is a counterexample.
- We derive the derivatives of , , and from the definition. The only keys are two limits: and .
- Once linearity, the product rule, the quotient rule and the chain rule have been proved, differentiating elementary functions reduces to mechanical computation. The proof of the chain rule requires a device for avoiding division by .
- The rule for inverse functions, , puts , , and even the real powers within reach at a single stroke.
1. Motivation: the tangent problem and instantaneous velocity
Section titled “1. Motivation: the tangent problem and instantaneous velocity”The mathematicians of the seventeenth century carried two problems that appear at first sight unrelated: drawing a line touching a curve, the tangent problem (Fermat, Descartes), and assigning an instantaneous velocity to a motion that changes from moment to moment (Galileo, Newton). Differential calculus was born from the recognition that these two are one and the same operation.
Consider the tangent problem first. For a circle we can define a tangent as a line meeting the circle in exactly one point. That definition, however, fails completely for general curves. The parabola and the -axis share only the origin, yet we do not want to call the -axis a tangent. Conversely, the line , which ought to be the tangent to at , touches the curve at the infinitely many points ( an integer). And the tangent to at the origin passes straight through the curve to the other side. A global condition on the number of shared points simply cannot capture tangency.
So we change the point of view. The line through the two points and on the curve — the secant — has slope
which is determined by division alone. If, as we bring the second point toward the first, the slope of the secant settles down to a single value, let us call that value the slope of the tangent.
Now for instantaneous velocity. If the position at time is , then the average velocity from time to time is . But what is “the velocity at the instant ”? Substituting gives , which means nothing. Newton’s “fluxions” and Leibniz’s “infinitesimal ” involved a logically inconsistent procedure: carry out the division treating , and afterwards regard as . Berkeley attacked this fiercely in his 1734 work The Analyst, calling infinitesimals the ghosts of departed quantities.
The notion of a limit put an end to the confusion. Rather than setting equal to , carry out the division with and then take the limit of the result as . Merely interchanging the order makes the difficulty of disappear. Since the slope of a secant and an average velocity are expressions of the same shape, both problems are settled by a single definition.
In what follows we take the rigorous definition of a limit (the - formulation) as known. Consult Limits and continuity (- arguments) as needed.
2. Preliminaries: notation and the Landau symbol
Section titled “2. Preliminaries: notation and the Landau symbol”Throughout this article denotes an open interval, and all functions are real-valued. Since is a point of an open interval, holds for all sufficiently small . Hence the difference quotient is defined on some neighborhood of with removed, and it makes sense to consider its limit as .
In the proofs we use the following properties of limits as known (all of them results from Limits and continuity).
| Property used | Content |
|---|---|
| algebra of limits(Theorem 4.2)[Limits and Continuity] | If the limits exist, the limit of a sum, difference or product is the sum, difference or product of the limits. For a quotient the same holds when the limit of the denominator is not |
| squeeze theorem(Theorem 4.3)[Limits and Continuity] | If and the limits of and agree, then has the same limit |
| composition with a continuous function(Theorem 5.3)[Limits and Continuity] | If as and is continuous at , then |
| continuity of polynomials and rational functions(Corollary 5.2)[Limits and Continuity] | Continuous at every point where the denominator is not |
To speak concisely about the size of an error, we introduce the following notation.
Definition 2.1(Landau's little-o)
Let be a function defined on some punctured neighborhood of . If
holds, we write and say that is an infinitesimal of higher order than . More generally, when we write .
This “equation” does not assert that the left-hand side equals the right-hand side; it is an abuse of notation meaning “the function on the left is one of the functions with this property”. Accordingly, a formula such as is to be read from left to right. Indeed, if and , then , so the assertion follows from the limit law for sums alone. Likewise for any constant .
3. The derivative at a point and the derivative function
Section titled “3. The derivative at a point and the derivative function”Definition 3.1(The derivative at a point)
Let be an open interval, and . If the limit
exists as a finite real number, we say that is differentiable at the point , and we call this limit the derivative of at , written .
Putting , the conditions and are the same, so we may also write
We choose whichever form is more convenient for the proof at hand.
When is differentiable at , we define the line
to be the tangent line to the graph of at the point . Note the order of ideas: we do not define the word “touch” first and then compute a slope. Rather, the existence of the limit of secant slopes is what we call differentiability, and the line with that limit as its slope is what we call the tangent. As we saw in §1, a definition by counting shared points is useless.
Example 3.2(The tangent to a parabola, from the definition)
Let and compute the derivative at an arbitrary straight from the definition. For ,
Along the way we cancelled a factor ; this is legitimate precisely because the difference quotient is only ever considered for . The last expression is a linear function of , so it converges to as . Hence is differentiable at every point and .
The tangent at is . Checking the shared points for good measure, gives only ; but as explained in §1, this property of meeting the curve at a single point is not the reason the line is a tangent — it merely happens to hold.
Definition 3.3(The derivative function and higher derivatives)
If is differentiable at every point of , we say that is differentiable on , and we call the function assigning to each the derivative of . It is also written , or .
If moreover is differentiable on , its derivative is written and called the second derivative. In general we define inductively and , and call the -th derivative. When exists and is in addition continuous, is said to be of class .
Differentiability imposes a fairly strong constraint on a function. The first thing we can see is the following.
Theorem 3.4(Differentiability implies continuity)
Let be an open interval, and . If is differentiable at , then is continuous at .
Proof(Theorem 3.4)
For we have the identity obtained by multiplying the difference quotient back by :
By hypothesis the first factor on the right converges to as , and the second converges to . By the limit law for products (§2), the right-hand side converges to . Hence , which is exactly the statement that is continuous at .
We shall use this theorem repeatedly in what follows. In the proof of the product rule, for example, we need the step ” because is differentiable”, and there we invoke Theorem 3.4.
The converse fails.
Example 3.5(The absolute value is not differentiable at the origin)
Let . This is continuous on . But the difference quotient at is
so the right-hand limit is and the left-hand limit is . Since the two disagree, the limit as does not exist and is not differentiable at . Where the graph has a corner, the slopes of the secants settle on different values according as we approach from the right or from the left.
The gap between continuity and differentiability is in fact not merely a matter of “finitely many corners”. In 1872 Weierstrass constructed a function on that is continuous everywhere and differentiable nowhere (of the form ). Differentiability is a far stronger condition than continuity.
4. Differentiability as linear approximation
Section titled “4. Differentiability as linear approximation”The definition by a limit of difference quotients is convenient for computation, but because it involves dividing by it cannot be transferred as it stands to several variables, where becomes a vector. So let us prepare an equivalent reformulation in which no division appears. It is at the same time an answer to the question of what operation differentiation really performs.
Theorem 4.1(Differentiability and linear approximation)
Let be an open interval, , and . The following two conditions are equivalent.
(i) is differentiable at and .
(ii) Setting , we have ; that is, .
Moreover, a real number satisfying condition (ii) is unique if it exists.
Proof(Theorem 4.1)
Since is a point of the open interval , there is a such that implies . For in this range, dividing both sides of the definition of by () gives the identity
By the limit law for sums, the statement that the left-hand side converges to as and the statement that the first term on the right converges to are equivalent (the constant passes through the limit). This is the equivalence of (i) and (ii).
Now uniqueness. Suppose and both satisfy (ii), with corresponding errors . Taking the difference, for ,
Dividing both sides by gives , and the right-hand side converges to as . The left-hand side is a constant independent of , and the limit of a constant function is that constant itself; by uniqueness of limits, , that is, .
Theorem 4.1 says that differentiability means: the error made in replacing locally by a linear function is an infinitesimal of higher order than . And is the slope of that best linear function. Since no division by appears in this form, replacing by a vector and by a linear map turns it directly into the definition of the derivative in several variables. For details see the definition of total differentiability(Definition 4.1)[多変数関数の微分と偏微分] in Differentiation in several variables and partial derivatives.
5. Derivatives of the basic functions
Section titled “5. Derivatives of the basic functions”5.1. Two key limits
Section titled “5.1. Two key limits”Differentiating the trigonometric functions and the exponential function each reduces to a single limit. We begin with the trigonometric case. From here on, angles are always measured in radians.
Lemma 5.1(The basic trigonometric limits)
Proof(Lemma 5.1)
Suppose first that . Take the center of the unit circle, the point on the -axis and the point on the circle, and let be the intersection of the tangent at with the ray . The triangle , the circular sector and the triangle are nested in this order, so their areas satisfy
(the area of the sector is , since the radius is and the central angle is radians). Multiplying each side by and dividing by gives
For every side is positive, so taking reciprocals and reversing the inequalities yields
Since is continuous with , the squeeze theorem (§2) gives the right-hand limit . Moreover , so the quotient is an even function and the left-hand limit is as well. The two one-sided limits agree, and the first assertion follows.
The second assertion reduces to the first. Using and (for we have ), we rewrite
As the first factor tends to , and the second tends to by the continuity of and together with the limit law for quotients. By the limit law for products the whole expression tends to .
This proof grants the geometric fact that the area of the sector is . But defining arc length and area rigorously requires integration, and the computation of those integrals often uses the derivatives of the trigonometric functions. Depending on how a textbook is organized, the argument can therefore become circular. The standard way to avoid this is to define and , not geometrically, but by the power series
and to rebuild radians and from there. Along that road, Lemma 5.1 follows directly from estimates on the series (exactly the same argument as the treatment of the exponential function below). For the definition by series see Series and convergence tests, and for the relation between area and integration see The fundamental theorem of calculus and the definite integral.
Next, the exponential function. Here we take to be defined by the power series
and we use the following two facts, established in Series and convergence tests. First, this series converges absolutely for every (d'Alembert's ratio test(Theorem 6.2)[級数と収束判定]). Second, the addition formula holds (the Cauchy product of absolutely convergent(Definition 7.1)[級数と収束判定] series). We set and from now on also write as .
Lemma 5.3(The basic limit for the exponential)
Proof(Lemma 5.3)
First we check that . For we have , so
and since the inequality is strict from on, .
Next let . Separating the first two terms of the series gives , so by the triangle inequality (term-by-term estimation is permitted because the series converges absolutely),
Here, for we have , hence . Substituting ,
For each term satisfies , so . Putting all of this together,
and dividing both sides by ,
Hence, given , taking makes the left-hand side at most for every with . This is precisely the definition of the required limit.
5.2. The basic formulas
Section titled “5.2. The basic formulas”Theorem 5.4(Derivatives of the basic functions)
The following hold.
(1) Let be a positive integer and (). Then is differentiable at every point of with . Here, for we adopt the convention (including at ).
(2) is differentiable at every point of with .
(3) is differentiable at every point of with .
(4) is differentiable at every point of with .
Proof(Theorem 5.4)
(1) Fix . Let us verify the factorization, valid for ,
Distributing over the sum on the right gives
and substituting in the first sum turns it into . The second sum is , so the overlapping terms cancel, leaving only the term with and the term with . This proves the factorization.
Consequently, for ,
The right-hand side is a polynomial in , hence continuous (§2), and as it converges to
Since was arbitrary, (1) is proved.
(2) For and , the addition formula gives
By Lemma 5.1, the fraction in the first term is and the fraction in the second term tends to ; by the limit laws for sums and products the whole expression converges to .
(3) Similarly, from ,
(4) From the addition formula , for ,
Here is a constant independent of , and by Lemma 5.3 the fraction on the right converges to ; by the limit law for products the whole expression converges to .
Part (4) of Theorem 5.4 shows that has the remarkable property of being unchanged by differentiation. This is why the exponential function turns up everywhere in the theory of differential equations.
6. Rules of differentiation
Section titled “6. Rules of differentiation”Returning to the definition every time we wish to differentiate a particular function is not practical. The following theorem decomposes differentiation into “derivatives of the parts” and “rules for assembling them”.
Theorem 6.1(Linearity, the product rule and the quotient rule)
Let be an open interval, and , and suppose both and are differentiable at . Then the following hold.
(1) (Linearity) For all real numbers , the function is differentiable at and
(2) (Product rule) The product is differentiable at and
(3) (Quotient rule) If moreover , then has no zero on some open interval containing ; the function defined there is differentiable at and
Proof(Theorem 6.1)
(1) For , the definition of the difference quotient gives
By hypothesis the two difference quotients on the right converge to and respectively, so by the limit laws for sums and scalar multiples the left-hand side converges to .
(2) We add and subtract in the numerator of the difference quotient. For ,
In the first term the difference quotient converges to and converges to ; the latter holds because , being differentiable at , is continuous at by Theorem 3.4. This is the place where “differentiability implies continuity” is used. The second term is the product of the constant with a difference quotient converging to . By the limit laws for products and sums, the whole expression converges to .
(3) First we confirm that is defined near . By Theorem 3.4, is continuous at , so taking in the definition of continuity, there is a such that (with ) implies . Then the triangle inequality gives
so has no zero on this neighborhood, and is defined there.
Next we differentiate . For with , placing the terms over a common denominator gives
As we have (again by Theorem 3.4), so by the limit law for quotients the first factor converges to and the second to . Hence is differentiable at with .
Finally, regarding and applying (2),
That the product rule is not can be made plausible by a picture of areas. A rectangle with side lengths and has area . Stretching the two sides by and respectively increases the area by “the strip added horizontally, ”, plus “the strip added vertically, ”, plus “the small rectangle in the corner, ”. The last term is of second order in , so it is and vanishes; the two remaining strips correspond to the two terms of the product rule.
Example 6.2(Negative powers, the tangent, rational functions)
(a) Negative integer powers. Let be a positive integer and . Taking (a constant function; follows at once from the definition) and in Theorem 6.1 (3),
Writing , this reads . Including the case of a constant function, we have now established the formula for every integer , at every .
(b) The tangent function. For with we have . By Theorem 6.1 (3) and Theorem 5.4 (2)(3),
The last equality comes from reading as a split into .
(c) A rational function. For let . The numerator has derivative and the denominator has derivative , so
7. Differentiating composites (the chain rule)
Section titled “7. Differentiating composites (the chain rule)”The remaining assembly rule concerns the composite . Intuitively, magnifies a change in the input by the factor and magnifies the result by a further factor , so the overall magnification should be the product of the two.
flowchart LR A["change in x: h"] -->|"magnification by g: g'(a)"| B["change in u: about g'(a)h"] -->|"magnification by f: f'(g(a))"| C["change in y: about f'(g(a))g'(a)h"]
Naively it looks as though it would suffice to split the difference quotient as
and pass to the limit. But this expression loses its meaning for those with , where the denominator becomes . Nor can we claim that this never happens for sufficiently close to . The function (with ) treated in Example 7.5 is differentiable at , yet for every , so the denominator vanishes arbitrarily close to . The proof therefore needs a different tool.
Theorem 7.2(The chain rule)
Let be open intervals, and with . Suppose is differentiable at and is differentiable at . Then the composite is differentiable at and
Proof(Theorem 7.2)
Define an auxiliary function by
This has the following two properties.
First, is continuous at . Indeed, is exactly the limit of the difference quotient of at , which by the hypothesis that is differentiable at equals . The value assigned to at was chosen precisely so as to make it continuous.
Second, for every ,
For this is just the defining formula for with the denominator cleared, and for both sides are . Rewriting things in this “multiplicative” form is what removes the danger of dividing by .
Now take with and substitute into the identity above:
Dividing both sides by (),
The essential point is that this identity remains correct even for those with , both sides then being .
It remains to let . Since is differentiable at , it is continuous at by Theorem 3.4, so . As is continuous at , the limit property for composition with a continuous function (§2) gives . The second factor converges to by definition. By the limit law for products,
which says that is differentiable at with derivative the right-hand side.
In Leibniz notation, setting and , the chain rule reads
Its power lies in looking like the cancellation of fractions, which makes it hard to go wrong when changing variables. Bear in mind, however, that at this stage and are not quantities with a meaning of their own: is a single symbol meaning “differentiate with respect to ”. The appearance of cancellation is a happy encoding of the conclusion of Theorem 7.2, not a proof of it. Do not forget either the convention that denotes the value at , that is, .
Example 7.4(Computations with the chain rule)
(a) . With outer function and inner function we have and , so
(b) (the shape occurring in the density of the normal distribution). With outer function and inner function , where ,
(c) . Reading the outer function as and the inner as ,
Expanding first and then differentiating would mean handling a polynomial with terms; with the chain rule it is one line.
(d) A triple composite. . Decomposing as , , and using the chain rule twice,
Remembering it as “multiply the slopes from the inside outwards” makes mistakes less likely, I think.
Example 7.5(A differentiable function whose derivative is not continuous)
Let us examine this function.
First, differentiability at , straight from the definition. For ,
(we used ), so by the squeeze theorem the difference quotient converges to . Hence is differentiable at with .
Next, for , the product rule Theorem 6.1 (2) together with the chain rule Theorem 7.2 (applied to the composite of and , with from Example 6.2 (a)) gives
Now take (), so that . But
so . That is, is differentiable on all of and yet is not continuous at . Being differentiable and being of class are different things.
Derivatives can be discontinuous in this way, but they are not entirely unconstrained either: a derivative always has the intermediate value property (Darboux’s theorem). We take up this topic in The mean value theorem and Taylor’s theorem.
8. Differentiating inverse functions
Section titled “8. Differentiating inverse functions”How are we to find the derivative of a function defined as an inverse, such as or ? Since the graph of is the reflection of the graph of in the line , the slope of the tangent ought to be the reciprocal. The following proposition makes this precise.
Proposition 8.1(Differentiating an inverse function)
Let be an open interval and a continuous, strictly monotone (increasing or decreasing) function. Then is an open interval, and there is an inverse function , which is continuous (this follows from the intermediate value theorem).
If moreover is differentiable at with , then is differentiable at and
Proof(Proposition 8.1)
The first part (that is an open interval and that exists and is continuous) belongs to the theory of continuous functions, so we leave it to Limits and continuity and prove the second part here.
Let with , and put . Since is strictly monotone it is injective, so forces . Hence , and the following rewriting is legitimate:
Now let . Since is continuous at we have , and as observed above, is maintained as long as . It is this condition — that the value never coincides with — that allows us to substitute directly the limit as of a function of the variable (we are using the composition property of §2 with the punctured-neighborhood proviso). Since is differentiable at ,
and by the limit law for quotients (in the case where the limit of the denominator is not ) its reciprocal converges to . Hence is differentiable at with . Substituting gives the last displayed form.
The hypothesis cannot be dropped. The function is strictly increasing on with , but its inverse has difference quotient at and is not differentiable there. The tangent becomes vertical.
Example 8.2(Logarithm, square root, arctangent)
(a) The natural logarithm. First let us check that is strictly increasing on . If , every term of the series is positive, so . Also, the addition formula gives , so ; and is continuous by Theorem 5.4 (4) together with Theorem 3.4, so combining with the intermediate value theorem yields . Therefore, for , . That the range is we leave to the chapter on series; we write for the inverse function. By Theorem 5.4 (4), never vanishes, so Proposition 8.1 applies and, for ,
(b) The square root. Restricting to makes it strictly increasing with , and the inverse is . The derivative does not vanish on . Hence, for ,
(c) The arctangent. Restricting to makes it strictly increasing with range . We write for its inverse. By Example 6.2 (b) we have , so Proposition 8.1 applies and, for ,
We merely substituted , but the interesting thing is that no trigonometric function survives on the right.
Now that we have the logarithm, we can also differentiate real powers. For and , the standard definition is . By the chain rule Theorem 7.2 and Example 8.2 (a),
so the formula of Theorem 5.4 (1) has been extended to arbitrary real exponents. Similarly, setting for gives . That the coefficient equals only when is one explanation of why is chosen as the base.
9. Exercises
Section titled “9. Exercises”Exercise 9.1Easy
Let .
(1) Find the derivative for from the definition (the limit of the difference quotient).
(2) Show that is not right-differentiable at ; that is, show that does not exist as a finite value.
Solution
(1) Fix and take small enough that . For , rationalizing the numerator gives
(since , the denominator is positive and we have not divided by ). As is continuous on , we have as , so by the limit law for quotients
This amounts to verifying Example 8.2 (b) directly, without Proposition 8.1.
(2) For we have . Given any , the inequality implies , so this difference quotient diverges to as and has no finite limit. Hence is not (right-)differentiable at . The tangent to the graph at the origin is vertical.
Exercise 9.2Standard
For real numbers define
Find all for which is differentiable at .
Solution
Necessary condition (continuity). By Theorem 3.4, differentiability at requires continuity there. We have , while the right-hand limit is , so
that is, is forced. We call this condition (C) below.
Computing the one-sided difference quotients. Under (C) we have . For ,
so the right-hand limit is . For (with small) we have , so
By (C) we have , so the numerator is ; dividing by gives , which converges to as .
Conclusion. Differentiability is the condition that the two one-sided limits agree, so , that is, ; and (C) then gives . In this case . Conversely, for these values of the computation above confirms that both one-sided limits equal , so is the required answer.
Exercise 9.3Standard
For let
Find by logarithmic differentiation, that is, by taking logarithms of both sides and then differentiating. Indicate explicitly where the chain rule is used.
Solution
For we have , so is defined, and by the properties of the logarithm
Differentiate the left-hand side as a function of . It is the composite of with , so by Theorem 7.2 and Example 8.2 (a) we get . Each term on the right is likewise a composite, with , and . Collecting these by linearity Theorem 6.1 (1),
Therefore
Using the product and quotient rules directly leads to the same answer, but for expressions mixing products, quotients and powers, logarithmic differentiation takes considerably less work.
Exercise 9.4Hard
Prove by induction on that if are times differentiable on an open interval , then so is the product , and
(the Leibniz formula).
Solution
For the fine points of induction, see the principle of mathematical induction(Theorem 3.2)[Techniques of Proof] in Techniques of proof: induction and proof by contradiction.
The case . By Theorem 6.1 (2) we have , and the right-hand side agrees with (since and ).
Assuming the case , proving the case . Let be times differentiable. By the induction hypothesis,
and each on the right is differentiable once more. Differentiating both sides and using linearity Theorem 6.1 (1) and the product rule Theorem 6.1 (2),
Substituting in the first sum turns it into , and rewriting the index of the second sum as gives . Separating off the term (which occurs only in the second sum) and the term (which occurs only in the first) and collecting the part with ,
Using Pascal’s rule and noting that , the two separated terms fit exactly into the sum as the terms and . Hence
which is the case . By induction the formula holds for every positive integer .
That this has exactly the same shape as the binomial theorem is no coincidence. Both come from the same structure: an operation on two objects is repeated times, and one counts which of the two is chosen at each repetition.
References
Section titled “References”- Sugiura Mitsuo, Kaiseki Nyūmon I (Introduction to Analysis I), University of Tokyo Press, 1980 (in Japanese) — Chapter II, “Differentiation”. A standard textbook thoroughgoing in its use of -; the development in this article broadly follows its plan.
- Takagi Teiji, Kaiseki Gairon (A Course of Analysis), revised 3rd ed., Iwanami Shoten, 1983 (in Japanese) — Chapter 2, “Differentiation”. A classic, careful in its account of the relation between the derivative and the tangent line.
- W. Rudin, Principles of Mathematical Analysis, 3rd ed., McGraw-Hill, 1976 — Chapter 5, “Differentiation”. The proof of the chain rule uses the same auxiliary function as the one given here.
- M. Spivak, Calculus, 4th ed., Publish or Perish, 2008 — Chapters 9–10. The motivating discussion leading up to the definition of the derivative is treated in great detail.
- G. Berkeley, The Analyst, 1734 — the original critique of infinitesimals; the primary source for the historical remarks in §1.
Appendix: How to read Leibniz notation
Section titled “Appendix: How to read Leibniz notation”The notation looks like the ratio of two quantities and . This appearance helps with computation, but it is also a source of confusion for beginners. Let us set down the accurate position at this stage.
First, is a single symbol denoting the operator “differentiate with respect to ”, and is the result of applying that operator to . We are not splitting it into a numerator and a denominator and giving each a meaning of its own. Accordingly, the reason looks like cancellation is that the statement of Theorem 7.2 happens to have that shape. Cancellation is not a proof.
Second, there is nonetheless a reason why the notation can be trusted. By Theorem 4.1, differentiability means that . If we agree to read as “the small increment in itself” and as “the increment in predicted by the linear approximation, namely ”, then acquires meaning as a definition, and dividing both sides by does give . Under this reading, the cancellation in the chain rule is likewise justified as the composition of linear approximations. Generalizing this standpoint leads to the theory of differential forms, which comes into its own in multivariable integration (change of variables and Jacobians).
Third, has nothing whatever to do with . It merely expresses, in the notation of a squared operator, the act of applying twice. This one piece of notation is not to be read as a fraction.
The toolkit of differentiation is now complete. In the next chapter we pass to The mean value theorem and Taylor’s theorem, which extracts global behavior of a function from the pointwise information carried by the derivative.
Report an error in this article ・Operated by: Mugen Giken LLC ・Pricing ・Terms ・Legal notice
© 2026 夢現技研合同会社 ・Feeding the text to an LLM is welcome. Code samples are MIT licensed.