Intuition for why $f_{xy} = f_{yx}$












18












$begingroup$


If we have a function $f(x,y)$, why is it that $f_{xy} = f_{yx}$? I'm looking for an intuitive, qualitative reason rather than a rigorous proof.



$f_{yx}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $x$ axis, as you move along the $y$ axis. Similarly, $f_{xy}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $y$ axis, as you move along the $x$ axis. At least, this is how I understand it. However, I can't see any reason why the two should be the same.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Indeed, this was one of the most surprising facts that I learned in my undergraduate
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just as a note: this is not always true. See here for more details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:19










  • $begingroup$
    @Dave the cases where it isn't true are not "intuitive" though.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:26










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, but if you differenciate a function like $xy^2-xcos y$, very different on $x$ and $y$, you obtain ... $2y+sin y$. Why? (Deeply)
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:27












  • $begingroup$
    I don't like this perpetuation of the myth that a rigorous proof is separate from the land of intuition. Of course, right when you see a proof, you might not learn anything intuitively, but if you analyze and think about the proof enough, you'll extract the desired intuition.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 27 '18 at 0:30


















18












$begingroup$


If we have a function $f(x,y)$, why is it that $f_{xy} = f_{yx}$? I'm looking for an intuitive, qualitative reason rather than a rigorous proof.



$f_{yx}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $x$ axis, as you move along the $y$ axis. Similarly, $f_{xy}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $y$ axis, as you move along the $x$ axis. At least, this is how I understand it. However, I can't see any reason why the two should be the same.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Indeed, this was one of the most surprising facts that I learned in my undergraduate
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just as a note: this is not always true. See here for more details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:19










  • $begingroup$
    @Dave the cases where it isn't true are not "intuitive" though.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:26










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, but if you differenciate a function like $xy^2-xcos y$, very different on $x$ and $y$, you obtain ... $2y+sin y$. Why? (Deeply)
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:27












  • $begingroup$
    I don't like this perpetuation of the myth that a rigorous proof is separate from the land of intuition. Of course, right when you see a proof, you might not learn anything intuitively, but if you analyze and think about the proof enough, you'll extract the desired intuition.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 27 '18 at 0:30
















18












18








18


5



$begingroup$


If we have a function $f(x,y)$, why is it that $f_{xy} = f_{yx}$? I'm looking for an intuitive, qualitative reason rather than a rigorous proof.



$f_{yx}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $x$ axis, as you move along the $y$ axis. Similarly, $f_{xy}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $y$ axis, as you move along the $x$ axis. At least, this is how I understand it. However, I can't see any reason why the two should be the same.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




If we have a function $f(x,y)$, why is it that $f_{xy} = f_{yx}$? I'm looking for an intuitive, qualitative reason rather than a rigorous proof.



$f_{yx}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $x$ axis, as you move along the $y$ axis. Similarly, $f_{xy}$ represents the rate of change of the gradient parallel to the $y$ axis, as you move along the $x$ axis. At least, this is how I understand it. However, I can't see any reason why the two should be the same.







multivariable-calculus intuition






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Dec 26 '18 at 23:14









Pancake_SenpaiPancake_Senpai

25116




25116








  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Indeed, this was one of the most surprising facts that I learned in my undergraduate
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just as a note: this is not always true. See here for more details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:19










  • $begingroup$
    @Dave the cases where it isn't true are not "intuitive" though.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:26










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, but if you differenciate a function like $xy^2-xcos y$, very different on $x$ and $y$, you obtain ... $2y+sin y$. Why? (Deeply)
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:27












  • $begingroup$
    I don't like this perpetuation of the myth that a rigorous proof is separate from the land of intuition. Of course, right when you see a proof, you might not learn anything intuitively, but if you analyze and think about the proof enough, you'll extract the desired intuition.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 27 '18 at 0:30
















  • 4




    $begingroup$
    Indeed, this was one of the most surprising facts that I learned in my undergraduate
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:18






  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Just as a note: this is not always true. See here for more details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives.
    $endgroup$
    – Dave
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:19










  • $begingroup$
    @Dave the cases where it isn't true are not "intuitive" though.
    $endgroup$
    – 0x539
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:26










  • $begingroup$
    Yes, but if you differenciate a function like $xy^2-xcos y$, very different on $x$ and $y$, you obtain ... $2y+sin y$. Why? (Deeply)
    $endgroup$
    – ajotatxe
    Dec 26 '18 at 23:27












  • $begingroup$
    I don't like this perpetuation of the myth that a rigorous proof is separate from the land of intuition. Of course, right when you see a proof, you might not learn anything intuitively, but if you analyze and think about the proof enough, you'll extract the desired intuition.
    $endgroup$
    – mathworker21
    Dec 27 '18 at 0:30










4




4




$begingroup$
Indeed, this was one of the most surprising facts that I learned in my undergraduate
$endgroup$
– ajotatxe
Dec 26 '18 at 23:18




$begingroup$
Indeed, this was one of the most surprising facts that I learned in my undergraduate
$endgroup$
– ajotatxe
Dec 26 '18 at 23:18




2




2




$begingroup$
Just as a note: this is not always true. See here for more details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives.
$endgroup$
– Dave
Dec 26 '18 at 23:19




$begingroup$
Just as a note: this is not always true. See here for more details: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetry_of_second_derivatives.
$endgroup$
– Dave
Dec 26 '18 at 23:19












$begingroup$
@Dave the cases where it isn't true are not "intuitive" though.
$endgroup$
– 0x539
Dec 26 '18 at 23:26




$begingroup$
@Dave the cases where it isn't true are not "intuitive" though.
$endgroup$
– 0x539
Dec 26 '18 at 23:26












$begingroup$
Yes, but if you differenciate a function like $xy^2-xcos y$, very different on $x$ and $y$, you obtain ... $2y+sin y$. Why? (Deeply)
$endgroup$
– ajotatxe
Dec 26 '18 at 23:27






$begingroup$
Yes, but if you differenciate a function like $xy^2-xcos y$, very different on $x$ and $y$, you obtain ... $2y+sin y$. Why? (Deeply)
$endgroup$
– ajotatxe
Dec 26 '18 at 23:27














$begingroup$
I don't like this perpetuation of the myth that a rigorous proof is separate from the land of intuition. Of course, right when you see a proof, you might not learn anything intuitively, but if you analyze and think about the proof enough, you'll extract the desired intuition.
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 27 '18 at 0:30






$begingroup$
I don't like this perpetuation of the myth that a rigorous proof is separate from the land of intuition. Of course, right when you see a proof, you might not learn anything intuitively, but if you analyze and think about the proof enough, you'll extract the desired intuition.
$endgroup$
– mathworker21
Dec 27 '18 at 0:30












5 Answers
5






active

oldest

votes


















3












$begingroup$

Intuition can't tell you why they're equal. For that it's too vague. But we can see that they measure the same thing.



Let's look at the origin specifically, just to make it easier. Also, let's say the function value and first derivatives at the origin are all $0$.



First we see what $f_{xy}$ (derivative first with respect to $x$, then with respect to $y$) measures. For each plane normal to the $y$-axis there is a line lying entirely in that plane which is tangent to the function graph for $x=0$. As we move along the $y$-axis, $f_x$ measures the slope of this line, and $f_{xy}$ measures the rate of rotation of this line. At the origin, our assumptions say that this line is the $x$-axis.



If you think enough about this, you will realize that an archetypal function with positive $f_{xy}(0,0)$ (something like $f(x,y)=xy$, specifically something with $f_{yy}=f_{xx}=0$) will, close to the origin, be positive in the first and third quadrants and negative in the second and fourth.



Now notice that this will, in the same interpretation, be exactly what makes $f_{yx}(0,0)$ positive as well.



It's up to you if you want to venture away from the land of $f=f_x=f_y=f_{xx}=f_{yy}=0$ and see what the result is. The difference is basically adding a function $g(x,y)=ax^2+by^2+cx+dy+e$ to $f$, which you can hopefully see doesn't change $f_{xy}$ and $f_{yx}$.






share|cite|improve this answer











$endgroup$





















    2












    $begingroup$

    One way to think about this is that for nice functions (in this case twice differentiable) you only need to consider $f$ up to second order, terms of higher order don't have any impact on second derivatives.



    So you only need to check this for general quadratic functions $f(x, y) = a x^2 + b y^2 + c x y + d x + e y + g$. In this case you almost immediately see $f_{xy} = f_{yx} = c$.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$













    • $begingroup$
      Why do higher order terms have no impact on the second derivative? They won't disappear when you differentiate them, rather, the lower order terms (1st order and constants) will have no impact on the second derivative.
      $endgroup$
      – Pancake_Senpai
      Dec 28 '18 at 0:50










    • $begingroup$
      @Pancake_Senpai Well the second derivative is (up to a factor of $2!$) the second order term, so all the other terms (in particular all those of order $geq 3$, which I meant by "higher order terms") are irrelevant.
      $endgroup$
      – 0x539
      Dec 29 '18 at 21:34



















    1












    $begingroup$

    As pointed in the comments, this is not always true and the first counter example given was somehow a shock in the mathematical world. You should look up Schwarz's theorem for this. However, I think that the way to think about it is to simply say that if a function has many derivatives, then you have some kind of regularity around a point. Your derivative $f_x$ or $f_y$ is restricted in the rate of growth in a way that no matter what direction x or y you approach a point, it is always in a smooth way.






    share|cite|improve this answer











    $endgroup$





















      0












      $begingroup$

      enter image description here



      $$begin{align}
      f_{xy}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_2}{Delta x}-frac{Delta f_1}{Delta x}}{Delta y} \
      &= frac{Delta f_2 - Delta f_1}{Delta x Delta y} \
      f_{yx}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_3}{Delta y}-frac{Delta f_4}{Delta y}}{Delta x} \
      &= frac{Delta f_3 - Delta f_4}{Delta x Delta y} \
      Delta f_2 + Delta f_4 &= Delta f_3 + Delta f_1 \
      therefore f_{xy}&=f_{yx}
      end{align}$$





      Remark. Note that this only works with $C^2$ functions.






      share|cite|improve this answer









      $endgroup$





















        -3












        $begingroup$

        Well, once you've understood that it's true for $f(x,y)=xy,$ there's little room left to be surprised.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$













          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053426%2fintuition-for-why-f-xy-f-yx%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes








          5 Answers
          5






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          3












          $begingroup$

          Intuition can't tell you why they're equal. For that it's too vague. But we can see that they measure the same thing.



          Let's look at the origin specifically, just to make it easier. Also, let's say the function value and first derivatives at the origin are all $0$.



          First we see what $f_{xy}$ (derivative first with respect to $x$, then with respect to $y$) measures. For each plane normal to the $y$-axis there is a line lying entirely in that plane which is tangent to the function graph for $x=0$. As we move along the $y$-axis, $f_x$ measures the slope of this line, and $f_{xy}$ measures the rate of rotation of this line. At the origin, our assumptions say that this line is the $x$-axis.



          If you think enough about this, you will realize that an archetypal function with positive $f_{xy}(0,0)$ (something like $f(x,y)=xy$, specifically something with $f_{yy}=f_{xx}=0$) will, close to the origin, be positive in the first and third quadrants and negative in the second and fourth.



          Now notice that this will, in the same interpretation, be exactly what makes $f_{yx}(0,0)$ positive as well.



          It's up to you if you want to venture away from the land of $f=f_x=f_y=f_{xx}=f_{yy}=0$ and see what the result is. The difference is basically adding a function $g(x,y)=ax^2+by^2+cx+dy+e$ to $f$, which you can hopefully see doesn't change $f_{xy}$ and $f_{yx}$.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$


















            3












            $begingroup$

            Intuition can't tell you why they're equal. For that it's too vague. But we can see that they measure the same thing.



            Let's look at the origin specifically, just to make it easier. Also, let's say the function value and first derivatives at the origin are all $0$.



            First we see what $f_{xy}$ (derivative first with respect to $x$, then with respect to $y$) measures. For each plane normal to the $y$-axis there is a line lying entirely in that plane which is tangent to the function graph for $x=0$. As we move along the $y$-axis, $f_x$ measures the slope of this line, and $f_{xy}$ measures the rate of rotation of this line. At the origin, our assumptions say that this line is the $x$-axis.



            If you think enough about this, you will realize that an archetypal function with positive $f_{xy}(0,0)$ (something like $f(x,y)=xy$, specifically something with $f_{yy}=f_{xx}=0$) will, close to the origin, be positive in the first and third quadrants and negative in the second and fourth.



            Now notice that this will, in the same interpretation, be exactly what makes $f_{yx}(0,0)$ positive as well.



            It's up to you if you want to venture away from the land of $f=f_x=f_y=f_{xx}=f_{yy}=0$ and see what the result is. The difference is basically adding a function $g(x,y)=ax^2+by^2+cx+dy+e$ to $f$, which you can hopefully see doesn't change $f_{xy}$ and $f_{yx}$.






            share|cite|improve this answer











            $endgroup$
















              3












              3








              3





              $begingroup$

              Intuition can't tell you why they're equal. For that it's too vague. But we can see that they measure the same thing.



              Let's look at the origin specifically, just to make it easier. Also, let's say the function value and first derivatives at the origin are all $0$.



              First we see what $f_{xy}$ (derivative first with respect to $x$, then with respect to $y$) measures. For each plane normal to the $y$-axis there is a line lying entirely in that plane which is tangent to the function graph for $x=0$. As we move along the $y$-axis, $f_x$ measures the slope of this line, and $f_{xy}$ measures the rate of rotation of this line. At the origin, our assumptions say that this line is the $x$-axis.



              If you think enough about this, you will realize that an archetypal function with positive $f_{xy}(0,0)$ (something like $f(x,y)=xy$, specifically something with $f_{yy}=f_{xx}=0$) will, close to the origin, be positive in the first and third quadrants and negative in the second and fourth.



              Now notice that this will, in the same interpretation, be exactly what makes $f_{yx}(0,0)$ positive as well.



              It's up to you if you want to venture away from the land of $f=f_x=f_y=f_{xx}=f_{yy}=0$ and see what the result is. The difference is basically adding a function $g(x,y)=ax^2+by^2+cx+dy+e$ to $f$, which you can hopefully see doesn't change $f_{xy}$ and $f_{yx}$.






              share|cite|improve this answer











              $endgroup$



              Intuition can't tell you why they're equal. For that it's too vague. But we can see that they measure the same thing.



              Let's look at the origin specifically, just to make it easier. Also, let's say the function value and first derivatives at the origin are all $0$.



              First we see what $f_{xy}$ (derivative first with respect to $x$, then with respect to $y$) measures. For each plane normal to the $y$-axis there is a line lying entirely in that plane which is tangent to the function graph for $x=0$. As we move along the $y$-axis, $f_x$ measures the slope of this line, and $f_{xy}$ measures the rate of rotation of this line. At the origin, our assumptions say that this line is the $x$-axis.



              If you think enough about this, you will realize that an archetypal function with positive $f_{xy}(0,0)$ (something like $f(x,y)=xy$, specifically something with $f_{yy}=f_{xx}=0$) will, close to the origin, be positive in the first and third quadrants and negative in the second and fourth.



              Now notice that this will, in the same interpretation, be exactly what makes $f_{yx}(0,0)$ positive as well.



              It's up to you if you want to venture away from the land of $f=f_x=f_y=f_{xx}=f_{yy}=0$ and see what the result is. The difference is basically adding a function $g(x,y)=ax^2+by^2+cx+dy+e$ to $f$, which you can hopefully see doesn't change $f_{xy}$ and $f_{yx}$.







              share|cite|improve this answer














              share|cite|improve this answer



              share|cite|improve this answer








              edited Dec 27 '18 at 0:17

























              answered Dec 26 '18 at 23:31









              ArthurArthur

              115k7116198




              115k7116198























                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  One way to think about this is that for nice functions (in this case twice differentiable) you only need to consider $f$ up to second order, terms of higher order don't have any impact on second derivatives.



                  So you only need to check this for general quadratic functions $f(x, y) = a x^2 + b y^2 + c x y + d x + e y + g$. In this case you almost immediately see $f_{xy} = f_{yx} = c$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    Why do higher order terms have no impact on the second derivative? They won't disappear when you differentiate them, rather, the lower order terms (1st order and constants) will have no impact on the second derivative.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Pancake_Senpai
                    Dec 28 '18 at 0:50










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Pancake_Senpai Well the second derivative is (up to a factor of $2!$) the second order term, so all the other terms (in particular all those of order $geq 3$, which I meant by "higher order terms") are irrelevant.
                    $endgroup$
                    – 0x539
                    Dec 29 '18 at 21:34
















                  2












                  $begingroup$

                  One way to think about this is that for nice functions (in this case twice differentiable) you only need to consider $f$ up to second order, terms of higher order don't have any impact on second derivatives.



                  So you only need to check this for general quadratic functions $f(x, y) = a x^2 + b y^2 + c x y + d x + e y + g$. In this case you almost immediately see $f_{xy} = f_{yx} = c$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$













                  • $begingroup$
                    Why do higher order terms have no impact on the second derivative? They won't disappear when you differentiate them, rather, the lower order terms (1st order and constants) will have no impact on the second derivative.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Pancake_Senpai
                    Dec 28 '18 at 0:50










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Pancake_Senpai Well the second derivative is (up to a factor of $2!$) the second order term, so all the other terms (in particular all those of order $geq 3$, which I meant by "higher order terms") are irrelevant.
                    $endgroup$
                    – 0x539
                    Dec 29 '18 at 21:34














                  2












                  2








                  2





                  $begingroup$

                  One way to think about this is that for nice functions (in this case twice differentiable) you only need to consider $f$ up to second order, terms of higher order don't have any impact on second derivatives.



                  So you only need to check this for general quadratic functions $f(x, y) = a x^2 + b y^2 + c x y + d x + e y + g$. In this case you almost immediately see $f_{xy} = f_{yx} = c$.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  One way to think about this is that for nice functions (in this case twice differentiable) you only need to consider $f$ up to second order, terms of higher order don't have any impact on second derivatives.



                  So you only need to check this for general quadratic functions $f(x, y) = a x^2 + b y^2 + c x y + d x + e y + g$. In this case you almost immediately see $f_{xy} = f_{yx} = c$.







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered Dec 26 '18 at 23:38









                  0x5390x539

                  1,403518




                  1,403518












                  • $begingroup$
                    Why do higher order terms have no impact on the second derivative? They won't disappear when you differentiate them, rather, the lower order terms (1st order and constants) will have no impact on the second derivative.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Pancake_Senpai
                    Dec 28 '18 at 0:50










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Pancake_Senpai Well the second derivative is (up to a factor of $2!$) the second order term, so all the other terms (in particular all those of order $geq 3$, which I meant by "higher order terms") are irrelevant.
                    $endgroup$
                    – 0x539
                    Dec 29 '18 at 21:34


















                  • $begingroup$
                    Why do higher order terms have no impact on the second derivative? They won't disappear when you differentiate them, rather, the lower order terms (1st order and constants) will have no impact on the second derivative.
                    $endgroup$
                    – Pancake_Senpai
                    Dec 28 '18 at 0:50










                  • $begingroup$
                    @Pancake_Senpai Well the second derivative is (up to a factor of $2!$) the second order term, so all the other terms (in particular all those of order $geq 3$, which I meant by "higher order terms") are irrelevant.
                    $endgroup$
                    – 0x539
                    Dec 29 '18 at 21:34
















                  $begingroup$
                  Why do higher order terms have no impact on the second derivative? They won't disappear when you differentiate them, rather, the lower order terms (1st order and constants) will have no impact on the second derivative.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Pancake_Senpai
                  Dec 28 '18 at 0:50




                  $begingroup$
                  Why do higher order terms have no impact on the second derivative? They won't disappear when you differentiate them, rather, the lower order terms (1st order and constants) will have no impact on the second derivative.
                  $endgroup$
                  – Pancake_Senpai
                  Dec 28 '18 at 0:50












                  $begingroup$
                  @Pancake_Senpai Well the second derivative is (up to a factor of $2!$) the second order term, so all the other terms (in particular all those of order $geq 3$, which I meant by "higher order terms") are irrelevant.
                  $endgroup$
                  – 0x539
                  Dec 29 '18 at 21:34




                  $begingroup$
                  @Pancake_Senpai Well the second derivative is (up to a factor of $2!$) the second order term, so all the other terms (in particular all those of order $geq 3$, which I meant by "higher order terms") are irrelevant.
                  $endgroup$
                  – 0x539
                  Dec 29 '18 at 21:34











                  1












                  $begingroup$

                  As pointed in the comments, this is not always true and the first counter example given was somehow a shock in the mathematical world. You should look up Schwarz's theorem for this. However, I think that the way to think about it is to simply say that if a function has many derivatives, then you have some kind of regularity around a point. Your derivative $f_x$ or $f_y$ is restricted in the rate of growth in a way that no matter what direction x or y you approach a point, it is always in a smooth way.






                  share|cite|improve this answer











                  $endgroup$


















                    1












                    $begingroup$

                    As pointed in the comments, this is not always true and the first counter example given was somehow a shock in the mathematical world. You should look up Schwarz's theorem for this. However, I think that the way to think about it is to simply say that if a function has many derivatives, then you have some kind of regularity around a point. Your derivative $f_x$ or $f_y$ is restricted in the rate of growth in a way that no matter what direction x or y you approach a point, it is always in a smooth way.






                    share|cite|improve this answer











                    $endgroup$
















                      1












                      1








                      1





                      $begingroup$

                      As pointed in the comments, this is not always true and the first counter example given was somehow a shock in the mathematical world. You should look up Schwarz's theorem for this. However, I think that the way to think about it is to simply say that if a function has many derivatives, then you have some kind of regularity around a point. Your derivative $f_x$ or $f_y$ is restricted in the rate of growth in a way that no matter what direction x or y you approach a point, it is always in a smooth way.






                      share|cite|improve this answer











                      $endgroup$



                      As pointed in the comments, this is not always true and the first counter example given was somehow a shock in the mathematical world. You should look up Schwarz's theorem for this. However, I think that the way to think about it is to simply say that if a function has many derivatives, then you have some kind of regularity around a point. Your derivative $f_x$ or $f_y$ is restricted in the rate of growth in a way that no matter what direction x or y you approach a point, it is always in a smooth way.







                      share|cite|improve this answer














                      share|cite|improve this answer



                      share|cite|improve this answer








                      edited Dec 26 '18 at 23:35









                      J.G.

                      26.7k22742




                      26.7k22742










                      answered Dec 26 '18 at 23:32









                      MalikMalik

                      1018




                      1018























                          0












                          $begingroup$

                          enter image description here



                          $$begin{align}
                          f_{xy}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_2}{Delta x}-frac{Delta f_1}{Delta x}}{Delta y} \
                          &= frac{Delta f_2 - Delta f_1}{Delta x Delta y} \
                          f_{yx}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_3}{Delta y}-frac{Delta f_4}{Delta y}}{Delta x} \
                          &= frac{Delta f_3 - Delta f_4}{Delta x Delta y} \
                          Delta f_2 + Delta f_4 &= Delta f_3 + Delta f_1 \
                          therefore f_{xy}&=f_{yx}
                          end{align}$$





                          Remark. Note that this only works with $C^2$ functions.






                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$


















                            0












                            $begingroup$

                            enter image description here



                            $$begin{align}
                            f_{xy}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_2}{Delta x}-frac{Delta f_1}{Delta x}}{Delta y} \
                            &= frac{Delta f_2 - Delta f_1}{Delta x Delta y} \
                            f_{yx}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_3}{Delta y}-frac{Delta f_4}{Delta y}}{Delta x} \
                            &= frac{Delta f_3 - Delta f_4}{Delta x Delta y} \
                            Delta f_2 + Delta f_4 &= Delta f_3 + Delta f_1 \
                            therefore f_{xy}&=f_{yx}
                            end{align}$$





                            Remark. Note that this only works with $C^2$ functions.






                            share|cite|improve this answer









                            $endgroup$
















                              0












                              0








                              0





                              $begingroup$

                              enter image description here



                              $$begin{align}
                              f_{xy}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_2}{Delta x}-frac{Delta f_1}{Delta x}}{Delta y} \
                              &= frac{Delta f_2 - Delta f_1}{Delta x Delta y} \
                              f_{yx}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_3}{Delta y}-frac{Delta f_4}{Delta y}}{Delta x} \
                              &= frac{Delta f_3 - Delta f_4}{Delta x Delta y} \
                              Delta f_2 + Delta f_4 &= Delta f_3 + Delta f_1 \
                              therefore f_{xy}&=f_{yx}
                              end{align}$$





                              Remark. Note that this only works with $C^2$ functions.






                              share|cite|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              enter image description here



                              $$begin{align}
                              f_{xy}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_2}{Delta x}-frac{Delta f_1}{Delta x}}{Delta y} \
                              &= frac{Delta f_2 - Delta f_1}{Delta x Delta y} \
                              f_{yx}&approxfrac{frac{Delta f_3}{Delta y}-frac{Delta f_4}{Delta y}}{Delta x} \
                              &= frac{Delta f_3 - Delta f_4}{Delta x Delta y} \
                              Delta f_2 + Delta f_4 &= Delta f_3 + Delta f_1 \
                              therefore f_{xy}&=f_{yx}
                              end{align}$$





                              Remark. Note that this only works with $C^2$ functions.







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered Dec 27 '18 at 0:52









                              Abraham ZhangAbraham Zhang

                              596312




                              596312























                                  -3












                                  $begingroup$

                                  Well, once you've understood that it's true for $f(x,y)=xy,$ there's little room left to be surprised.






                                  share|cite|improve this answer









                                  $endgroup$


















                                    -3












                                    $begingroup$

                                    Well, once you've understood that it's true for $f(x,y)=xy,$ there's little room left to be surprised.






                                    share|cite|improve this answer









                                    $endgroup$
















                                      -3












                                      -3








                                      -3





                                      $begingroup$

                                      Well, once you've understood that it's true for $f(x,y)=xy,$ there's little room left to be surprised.






                                      share|cite|improve this answer









                                      $endgroup$



                                      Well, once you've understood that it's true for $f(x,y)=xy,$ there's little room left to be surprised.







                                      share|cite|improve this answer












                                      share|cite|improve this answer



                                      share|cite|improve this answer










                                      answered Dec 26 '18 at 23:50









                                      zhw.zhw.

                                      73k43175




                                      73k43175






























                                          draft saved

                                          draft discarded




















































                                          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                                          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                                          But avoid



                                          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                                          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                                          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                                          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                                          draft saved


                                          draft discarded














                                          StackExchange.ready(
                                          function () {
                                          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3053426%2fintuition-for-why-f-xy-f-yx%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                                          }
                                          );

                                          Post as a guest















                                          Required, but never shown





















































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown

































                                          Required, but never shown














                                          Required, but never shown












                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Required, but never shown







                                          Popular posts from this blog

                                          Bressuire

                                          Cabo Verde

                                          Gyllenstierna