If $F(x)$ is the role with parameter eliminated then $\displaystyle F'(x) = \frac\textdy\textdt\big/\frac\textdx\textdt$

But the procedure for taking the 2nd derivative is just defined as " replace $y$ through dy/dx " to obtain

$$\frac\textd^2y\textdx^2=\frac\textd\textdx\left(\frac\textdy\textdx\right)=\frac\left<\frac\textd\textdt\left(\frac\textdy\textdt\right)\right>\left(\frac\textdx\textdt\right)$$

I don"t recognize the justification because that this step. No at all.

But that"s all my publication says ~ above the issue then that launches in to plugging points in come this formula, and it appears to work well enough, but I don"t understand why.

You are watching: D^2y/dx^2 parametric

I often find answers about question ~ above differentials are past my level, I"d really prefer to get this, it"d mean a lot come me if someone could break that down.

calculus
share
mention
monitor
edited Jul 6 "11 in ~ 2:32 t.b.
request Jul 6 "11 in ~ 2:14 NoteventhetutorknowsNoteventhetutorknows
$\endgroup$
5
include a comment |

9
$\begingroup$
Consider

\beginalign*\frac\textd^2y\textdx^2&=\frac\textd\textdx\left(\frac\textdy\textdx\right)\\ &=\frac\textd\textdt\left(\frac\textdy\textdx\right).\frac\textdt\textdx=\fracddt\left(\fracdydx\right)\cdot \frac1\fracdxdt\\\endalign*where the last equality is together a result of applying the chain rule.

re-superstructure
point out
follow
edited Feb 22 "18 in ~ 14:43 CommunityBot
1
answered Jul 6 "11 in ~ 2:45 NanaNana
$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$
Their justification is the you deserve to use the same process for $\fracdydx$ together for $Y$ since you deserve to now consider $Y_2 = g_2(t) = \fracdydx(t)$, the is, you as soon as again have actually a parametric equation in terms of the parameter $t$, and the parametric equation because that $x$ continues to be the same.

re-superstructure
cite
monitor
answered Jul 6 "11 in ~ 2:26 VhailorVhailor
$\endgroup$
include a comment |
0
$\begingroup$
I"m not solid enough to understand when you can treat dy/dx together a "fraction" and when you can"t. But the method I reasoned it was as follows...

See more: La Ilaha Illa Anta Subhanaka Inni Kuntu Minaz Zalimin, La Ilaha Illa Anta Subhanaka

dy/dx = dy/dt * dt/dx (very chain rule-esque)

d2y/dx2 = d2y/dxdt * dt/dx

Which seems entirely continuous with Nana"s answer!

re-superstructure
point out
monitor
reply Oct 29 "16 in ~ 8:28
grandfather PicklesMr Pickles
1
$\endgroup$
$\begingroup$
I"ve come up through a "simple enough" proof for the parametric derivative. Start by think about a curve parameterized in the means :$$, then I will rewrite derivative operator v x :$$ \fracdy(\theta)dx = \fracd \thetadx \fracd yd \theta$$The over equality hold by the chain rule, derivative that inner duty times derivative of outer function, currently I will remove the y:$$ \fracddx = \fracd \thetadx \fracd d \theta \tag1$$Now, the above can be believed of together an operator which eats a function and maps to another function, for instance if us multiply both side on ideal by y , then it provides the  \fracdydx through the parametric derivative the y. And, ns will present one an ext identity:$$ \theta( x( \theta) ) = \theta \tag2$$The over can be believed of in the complying with way: The role x(\theta) maps native  \theta \to x , the duty  \theta(x) maps indigenous  x \to \theta, merely the inverse mapping and hence over equality hold true for at the very least a little interval of where we can say the  \theta  and also x are bijective functions of each other. Taking the derivate that (2) through  \theta,:$$ \frac d \thetadx \fracdxd \theta = 1$$Or,$$ \fracd\thetadx = \frac1 \frac d xd \theta \tag2$$Hence, we deserve to rewrite (1) as:$$ \fracddx = \frac \fracd d \theta \fracdxd \theta \tag3$$Now, main point y on ideal side the (3):$$ \fracdydx = \frac \fracdy d \theta \fracdxd \theta \tag4