Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

Post History

66%
+2 −0
Q&A Why aren't $z_1=f(xy)$ and $z_2=f(x/y)$ functions of 2 variables?

1 answer  ·  posted 3y ago by TextKit‭  ·  last activity 3y ago by celtschk‭

Question calculus
#2: Post edited by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2021-03-09T05:48:35Z (over 3 years ago)
  • [Hagen von Eitzen answered](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/738461/53259) that $z_1, z_2$
  • >depend on only one variable - there's no comma between the parentheses.
  • [John Doe commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2780026/why-arent-z-1-fxy-and-z-2-fx-y-multivariable#comment5733224_2780026)
  • >the function $f(xy)=e^{xy}sin(xy)+(xy)^3$ may look like a multivariable function in x and y, but it can be written more simply as a univariate function, $f(t)=e^tsint+t^3$.
  • Yes, I agree that defining $t_1=xy$ transforms $f(xy)$ into $f(t_1)$, and $t_2= \dfrac xy$ transforms $f(x/y)$ into $f(t_2)$. Yes, $f(t_1)$ and $f(t_2)$ are single-variable. I agree that $z_1, z_2$ can be re-defined to be functions of ONE variable.
  • But I'm still befuddled why $z_1, z_2$ can't be construed as TWO variables. I feel that redefining with $t$ misrepresents the original 2 independent variables x, y. These definitions don't change the original fact that f did depend on 2 independent variables!
  • [Hagen von Eitzen answered](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/738461/53259) that $z_1, z_2$
  • >depend on only one variable - there's no comma between the parentheses.
  • [John Doe commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2780026/why-arent-z-1-fxy-and-z-2-fx-y-multivariable#comment5733224_2780026)
  • >the function $f(xy)=e^{xy}sin(xy)+(xy)^3$ may look like a multivariable function in x and y, but it can be written more simply as a univariate function, $f(t)=e^tsint+t^3$.
  • Yes, I agree that defining $t_1=xy$ transforms $f(xy)$ into $f(t_1)$, and $t_2= \dfrac xy$ transforms $f(\dfrac xy)$ into $f(t_2)$. Yes, $f(t_1)$ and $f(t_2)$ are single-variable. I agree that $z_1, z_2$ can be re-defined to be functions of ONE variable.
  • But I'm still befuddled why $z_1, z_2$ can't be construed as TWO variables. I feel that redefining with $t$ misrepresents the original 2 independent variables x, y. These definitions don't change the original fact that f did depend on 2 independent variables!
#1: Initial revision by user avatar TextKit‭ · 2021-03-09T05:48:14Z (over 3 years ago)
Why aren't $z_1=f(xy)$ and $z_2=f(x/y)$ functions of 2 variables?
[Hagen von Eitzen answered](https://math.stackexchange.com/a/738461/53259) that $z_1, z_2$

>depend on only one variable - there's no comma between the parentheses.

[John Doe commented](https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/2780026/why-arent-z-1-fxy-and-z-2-fx-y-multivariable#comment5733224_2780026)  

>the function $f(xy)=e^{xy}sin(xy)+(xy)^3$ may look like a multivariable function in x and y, but it can be written more simply as a univariate function, $f(t)=e^tsint+t^3$.

Yes, I agree that defining $t_1=xy$ transforms $f(xy)$ into $f(t_1)$, and $t_2= \dfrac xy$ transforms $f(x/y)$ into $f(t_2)$. Yes, $f(t_1)$ and $f(t_2)$ are single-variable. I agree that $z_1, z_2$ can be re-defined to be functions of ONE variable. 

But I'm still befuddled why $z_1, z_2$ can't be construed as TWO variables.  I feel that redefining with $t$ misrepresents the original 2 independent variables x, y. These definitions don't change the original fact that f did depend on 2 independent variables!