Confusion on chain rule substitution

In summary, the conversation discusses the use of chain rule in converting the formula for work from being dependent on time to being dependent on velocity. The conversation also includes a discussion on the integration by substitution and the use of different variables.
  • #1
skyfire101
5
0
I'm confident in my math ability, but how is it that by using the chain
rule...
[tex]
W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dt} dx
[/tex]
can be turned into
[tex]
W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dx} \frac{dx}{dt} dx = \int^{v_2}_{v_1}mv dv
[/tex]
?
I understand the concept of using chain rule to make velocity depend on position which is dependent on time
[tex]v(t)=v(x(t))[/tex]
[tex]v'(t)=v'(x(t))x'(t)[/tex]
where
[tex]\frac{dv}{dt}=\frac{dv}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt}[/tex]

however even with the above in mind integration by substitution is defined as:
[tex]\int^{b}_{a} f(g(t))g'(t)dt = \int^{g(b)}_{g(a)} f(x)dx [/tex]
which means the integral "dx" should be a "dt" instead since time is the base independent variable.
[tex] \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x(t))x'(t) dt [/tex]
and after substitution should be in the form
[tex] \int^{x(x_2)}_{x(x_1)} mv'(x)dx [/tex]
but obviously that makes no sense either since the limits of integration are in terms of "x" and x(t) needs to have inputs of time. where did i go wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hi skyfire101! :smile:

You're mixing up your x and t a bit.

I'll try to make it a little clearer by putting it this way:
[tex]\begin{array}{lcl}
\int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(t(x)) dx
&=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx \\
&=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) v(t(x)) dx \\
&=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v(t(x)) v'(x) dx \\
&=& \int^{v(x_2)}_{v(x_1)} m v dv
\end{array}[/tex]
 
  • #3
He's mixing up his v's.

If you're going to convert to notating things as functions, you either have be careful about the functions. If all variables are representing functions of time, then you have to introduce an entirely new function that expresses v as a function of x. If you call that function f, you have
v(t) = f(x(t))​
 
  • #4
thank you so much for the responses, however I am a little confused...
I like Serena said:
[tex]\begin{array}{lcl}
\int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(t(x)) dx
&=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx \\
&=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) v(t(x)) dx \\
&=& \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v(t(x)) v'(x) dx \\
&=& \int^{v(x_2)}_{v(x_1)} m v dv
\end{array}[/tex]
specifically here;
[tex]
\int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx
[/tex]
how did you get the
[tex]
x'(t(x))
[/tex]
it looks like you have x and t depending on each other, is that correct? please explain :)
 
  • #5
skyfire101 said:
I'm confident in my math ability, but how is it that by using the chain rule...
[tex]
W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dt} dx
[/tex]
can be turned into
[tex]
W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dx} \frac{dx}{dt} dx = \int^{v_2}_{v_1}mv dv
[/tex]
...
This looks like a piece of the proof of the Work-Energy Theorem as it is often presented in Introductory Physics textbooks.

My objection to this proof is that velocity may or may not be a "well defined" function of x. (If the particle reverses direction on its way from x1 to x2, then the velocity, v, is a so called "multi-valued function" of x.)

I would rather use a different intermediate step.

[itex]\displaystyle W_{x_1 \rightarrow x_2} = \int^{x_2}_{x_1} m \frac{dv}{dt} dx[/itex]
[itex]\displaystyle =\int^{t_2}_{t_1} m \frac{dv}{dt}\frac{dx}{dt} dt\ ,\text{ where }x_1=x(t_1) \text{ and }x_2=x(t_2)\,.[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle =\int^{t_2}_{t_1} mv \frac{dv}{dt} dt[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle =\int^{v_2}_{v_1} mv dv\ ,\text{ where }v_1=v(t_1) \text{ and }v_2=v(t_2)\,.[/itex]

[itex]\displaystyle =(1/2)m{v_2}^2-(1/2)m{v_1}^2[/itex]
 
  • #6
skyfire101 said:
thank you so much for the responses, however I am a little confused...

specifically here;
[tex]
\int^{x_2}_{x_1} m v'(x) x'(t(x)) dx
[/tex]
how did you get the
[tex]
x'(t(x))
[/tex]
it looks like you have x and t depending on each other, is that correct? please explain :)

It's how you applied the chain rule.

The chain rule is:
(f o g)'(t) = f'(g(t)) g'(t)​

You applied this to v as a function of x and x as a function of t:
(v o x)'(t) = v'(x(t)) x'(t)​

But since you are integrating with respect to x, you are implicitly using t as a function of x (which you actually shouldn't assume in general as SammyS already pointed out).
Note that t(x) = x-1(x) if we're using the function x(t).
Sorry about the mix-up caused by using x and t as variables, as well as functions, which is confusing as Hurkyl already pointed out.
I've bolded the functions to distinguish them. :)

So we have:
(v o x)'(t(x)) = v'(x(t(x))) x'(t(x))​
Since
x(t(x)) = x​
this becomes:
(v o x)'(t(x)) = v'(x) x'(t(x))​
 
Last edited:
  • #7
thanx so much it all makes sense now! :D
 

Related to Confusion on chain rule substitution

1. What is the chain rule in calculus?

The chain rule is a formula used in calculus to find the derivative of composite functions. It states that the derivative of a composite function is equal to the derivative of the outer function multiplied by the derivative of the inner function.

2. How is the chain rule applied in substitution?

In substitution, the chain rule is used to simplify the integration of composite functions. It involves replacing the inner function with a new variable and using the chain rule to find the derivative of the new variable.

3. What is the purpose of using substitution with the chain rule?

The purpose of using substitution with the chain rule is to simplify the integration of complex functions. It allows us to break down a complicated function into smaller, more manageable parts.

4. What are the steps for using substitution with the chain rule?

The steps for using substitution with the chain rule are as follows:

  1. Identify the inner function and replace it with a new variable, u.
  2. Find the derivative of u using the chain rule.
  3. Substitute the new variable and its derivative into the integral.
  4. Solve the resulting integral with respect to u.
  5. Substitute the original inner function back into the solution.

5. Can substitution with the chain rule be used for all types of integrals?

Yes, substitution with the chain rule can be used for all types of integrals, including definite and indefinite integrals. However, some integrals may require multiple substitutions to simplify the function before applying the chain rule.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
1K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Back
Top