for the following:
We have
and so
by the chain rule, one has:
, i.e.
.
Using Theorem 2-3 (3) and part (a), one has:
.
.
One has
, and so by the chain rule:
If
is the function of part (c), then
. Using the chain rule, we get:
If
, then
and
we know the derivative of
from part (a). The chain rule gives:
If
, then
. So one gets:
.
If
, then
. So one gets:
.
The chain rule gives:
.
Using the last part:
.
Using parts (h), (c), and (a), one gets
for the following (where
is continuous):
.
If
, then
, and so:
.
.
If
is as in part (a), then
, and so:
.
.
One has
where
and
have
derivatives as given in parts (d) and (a) above.
is bilinear if for
,
,
and
, we have
is bilinear, then
Let
have a 1 in the
place only.
Then we have
by
an obvious induction using bilinearity. It follows that there is an
depending only on
such that:
. Since
, we see that it
suffices to show the result in the case where
and the bilinear
function is the product function. But, in this case, it was verified in
the proof of Theorem 2-3 (5).
.
One has
by bilinearity and part (a).
in Theorem 2-3 is a special case
of (b).
This follows by applying (b) to the bilinear function
.
by
.
and
.
By Problem 2-12 and the fact that
is bilinear, one has
. So
.
are differentiable, and
is defined by
, show that
(Note that
is an
matrix; its transpose
is an
matrix, which we consider as a member of
.)
Since
, one can apply the chain rule to get the
assertion.
is differentiable and
for all
, show
that
.
Use part (b) applied to
to get
. This shows the result.
such
that the function |f| defined by |f|(t) = |f(t)| is not differentiable.
Trivially, one could let
. Then
is not differentiable at 0.
be Euclidean spaces of various dimensions.
A function
is called
multilinear if for each choice of
the function
defined by
is a linear transformation.
is multilinear and
, show that for
, with
, we have
This is an immediate consequence of Problem 2-12 (b).
.
This can be argued similarly to Problem 2-12. Just apply the definition
expanding the numerator out using multilinearity; the remainder looks like
a sum of terms as in part (a) except that there may be more than two
type
arguments. These can be expanded out as in the proof of the bilinear case to
get a sum of terms that look like constant multiples of
where
is at least two and the
are distinct. Just as
in the bilinear case, this limit is zero. This shows the result.
matrix as a point in the
-fold product
by considering each row as a member of
.
is differentiable and
This is an immediate consequence of Problem 2-14 (b) and the multilinearity of the determinant function.
are differentiable and
, show that
This follows by the chain rule and part (a).
for all
and
are differentiable, let
be the functions such that
are
the solutions of the equations:
for
. Show that
is differentiable and find
.
Without writing all the details, recall that Cramer's Rule allows you
to write down explicit formulas for the
where
is the matrix of the coefficients
and the
are obtained
from
by replacing the
column with the column of the
.
We can take transposes since the determinant of the transpose is the same
as the determinant of the original matrix; this makes the formulas simpler
because the formula for derivative of a determinant involved rows and so
now you are replacing the
row rather than the
column.
Anyway, one can use the quotient formula and part (b) to give a formula
for the derivative of the
.
is differentiable and
has a differentiable inverse
. Show
that
.
This follows immediately by the chain rule applied to
.