Need Help Proving Vector Calculus Formula? Look No Further!

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around proving a vector calculus formula involving the divergence operator and a scalar function multiplied by a vector field. Participants explore the mathematical expression and seek assistance in deriving the proof, focusing on the application of the product rule in vector calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Homework-related

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests help proving the formula \(\nabla \cdot (\phi \mathbf{F}) = (\phi \nabla) \cdot \mathbf{F} + \mathbf{F} \cdot (\nabla \phi\), indicating confusion about the application of divergence and the product rule.
  • Another participant clarifies the notation used, confirming that the dot represents the dot product and providing the correct mathematical expression.
  • A participant attempts to prove the formula by focusing on the x-direction, applying the product rule and breaking down the left and right sides of the equation step by step.
  • Further elaboration is provided on the terms involved in the proof, detailing how each component contributes to the overall expression.
  • A later reply expresses gratitude for the explanation and indicates understanding of the proof process.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the formulation of the problem and the approach to proving the vector calculus identity, but there is no consensus on the completeness of the proof or any potential missing steps.

Contextual Notes

Some participants note variations in notation and grouping of terms, which may affect clarity but do not seem to hinder the overall understanding of the proof process.

vas85
Messages
10
Reaction score
0
Vector Calculus Proof Help Please :)

Heya Ppl i have a problem i am trying to solve.

Prove that


(Delta) . ( (fi)F) = (fi)(Delta) . F + F . (Delta)(fi)

were these contain GRAD DIV in my opinion but i seem to not be able to get the answer.

F = Vector F where F = F1i + F2j + F3k is a vector field in R3 and (fi) the Greek symbol that looks similar to Theta is a fuction of x, y and z.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
oh and also guys the . is like the DOT PRODUCT dot not a MULTIPLICATION
 
Do you mean:

[tex]\nabla \cdot (\phi \mathbf{F}) = (\phi \nabla) \cdot \mathbf{F} + \mathbf{F} \cdot (\nabla \phi)[/tex]

If you're interested, you can click on the equation image to see what code was used to make it.

Also, the upside-down triangle representing the del operator is called "nabla," and the greek letter that looks like theta is called "phi."
 
Last edited:
Yeh TALewis that is how it looked like except that the BRACKETS wernt around the NABLA and PHI which are in the Right Hand Side, but i think that is a okay way to group it. Now if any1 has ideas on how to solve it i would much appreciate it Thanks
 
And um the question now after editing your Code looked like this

[tex]\nabla \cdot (\phi \mathbf{F}) = \phi \nabla \cdot \mathbf{F} + \mathbf{F} \cdot \nabla \phi[/tex]

But i think the way grouped in your rewrite should be the same thing, now if sum1 knows how to solve that proof :)
 
I will try to prove it considering the x-direction only. The full result should follow easily in the other two dimensions.

First, the left hand side:

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \nabla \cdot (\phi \mathbf{F}) &= <br /> \frac{\partial}{\partial x}\mathbf{i} \cdot \phi F_1 \mathbf{i}\\<br /> &= \frac{\partial}{\partial x}(\phi F_1)\\<br /> &= \phi\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial x} + F_1\frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \quad \mbox{(product rule)}<br /> \end{align}[/tex]

Now, the first term of the right hand side:

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> (\phi\nabla)\cdot\mathbf{F} &=<br /> \phi\frac{\partial}{\partial x}\mathbf{i} \cdot F_1\mathbf{i}\\<br /> &= \phi\frac{\partial F_1}{\partial x}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

The second term of the right hand side:

[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \mathbf{F}\cdot(\nabla\phi) &=<br /> F_1\mathbf{i}\cdot\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}\mathbf{i}\\<br /> &= F_1\frac{\partial\phi}{\partial x}<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]

I think you should be able to see now how it all comes together.
 
Thanks Heaps TALewis, i get the picture now! :):)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K