Register to reply 
What is derivative of a vector respect to another vector? 
Share this thread: 
#1
Sep1710, 11:37 PM

P: 3,883

I am confused. I never seen derivative of a vector respect to another vector. When I go on the web, the article just show divergence, curl, gradient etc. But not derivative of a vector respect to another vector?
For example what is [tex]\frac{d(\vec{x}\vec{x_0})^2}{d \vec{x}} ?[/tex] For [tex]\vec{x_0}[/tex] is a constant vector. The book seems to imply: [tex]\frac{d[(\vec{x}\vec{x_0})^2]}{d \vec{x}} = 2(\vec{x}\vec{x_0}) \frac{d \vec{x}}{d \vec{x}} = 2(\vec{x}\vec{x_0}) [/tex] I guess I don't know how to do a derivative like this. Can anyone help? I have looked through the multiple variable book and nothing like this. The variable is always scalar. The closest I seen is: [tex]\int_C \vec{F} \cdot d\vec{r} \;=\; \int_C \vec{F} \cdot \hat{r}dr[/tex] But this is not exactly what the book discribed. The only one that is remotely close is Directional Derivative which I don't think so. 


#2
Sep1810, 02:47 AM

Sci Advisor
HW Helper
P: 4,300

Wow, I agree that is really confusing notation.
Probably, they mean [tex](\vec x  \vec x_0)^2 = (\vec x  \vec x_0) \cdot (\vec x  \vec x_0)[/tex] so the square is actually a scalar. Then in components, you could write [tex] \left( \frac{\mathrm d [(\vec x  \vec x_0)^2] }{ \mathrm d\vec x } \right)_j = \frac{\mathrm d [(\vec x  \vec x_0)^2] }{ \mathrm d\vec x_j } = 2(\vec x  \vec x_0)_j = 2(\vec x_j  (\vec{x_0})_j) ) [/tex] If you doubt this, you can write out [tex](\vec x  \vec x_0) \cdot (\vec x  \vec x_0) = \left( \sum_{i = 1}^n (\vec x_i)^2 \right) + 2 \left( \sum_{i = 1}^n (\vec x_i) (\vec x_0)_i \right) + \left( \sum_{i = 1}^n ((\vec{x_0})_i)^2 \right)[/tex] and use that [tex]\frac{\mathrm d}{\mathrm d \vec x_j} \left( \sum_{i = 1}^n (\vec x_i)^2 \right) = 2 \vec x_j[/tex] etc 


#4
Sep1810, 04:34 AM

Mentor
P: 15,065

What is derivative of a vector respect to another vector?
The derivative of a vector function of a vector [tex]\vec f(\vec x)[/tex] with respect to a vector [tex]\vec x[/tex] is a 11 tensor, with the i,j element being
[tex]\frac{\partial f_i(\vec x)}{x_j}}[/tex] However, [itex](\vec x  \vec x_0)^2[/itex] is not a vector function. It is a scalar. You are just calculating the gradient: [tex]\nabla f(\vec x) = \sum_j \frac{\partial f(\vec x)}{x_j}}\hat x_j[/tex] Note that the gradient looks a lot like a vector. It is better thought of as being a covector. So what about the gradient of [itex]f(\vec x) = (\vec x  \vec x_0)^2[/itex]? Expanding this, we get [tex]f(\vec x) = (\vec x  \vec x_0)\cdot (\vec x  \vec x_0) = \sum_i (x_i  x_{0,i})^2[/tex] Taking the gradient, the j^{th} of the gradient is [tex]\left(\nabla f(\vec x)\right)_j = \sum_i 2 (x_i  x_{0,i}) \frac{\partial x_i}{\partial x_j} = \sum_i 2 (x_i  x_{0,i})\delta_{ij} = 2(x_j  x_{0,j})[/tex] 


#5
Sep1810, 05:23 PM

P: 3,883

The book is PDE by Strauss p194 to p195. It is part of the derivation of the Green's Function for sphere. The part is about normal derivative of G. It talked about derivation respect to [itex]\vec{x}[/itex] and some very funcky statement I still don't understand. But the later part just went back to the ordinary definition of normal derivative:
[tex]\frac{\partial G}{\partial n} = \nabla G \cdot \hat{n}[/tex] and derive the equation accordinary as if nothing happened!!!! So it is a non question at this point. Strauss is not a good book in any stretch. I just cannot find any PDE book that cover the Green's Function and the EM book that I ordered is still in shipment!!! Thanks Alan 


#6
Sep1910, 07:12 PM

Mentor
P: 6,230

amazon.com's search function lets me look at some, but not all, of the pages in the book. Do you mean the statement
Notice that equation (10) on page 185 gives [itex]G[/itex] as a function of both [itex]\bold{x}[/itex] and [itex]\bold{x}_0[/itex], so the quoted statement just means that normal partial derivatives, gradients, divergences, etc., are with respect to the coordinates of [itex]\bold{x}[/itex] and not with respect to the coordinates of [itex]\bold{x}_0[/itex]. The quoted statement does not actually mean "take the derivative with respect to a vector." 


#7
Sep1910, 09:50 PM

P: 3,883

I have not gone into the exercise yet. I still have one more question regarding to a zero vector in my other post that I got stuck!!! If you can help, that would be really appreciated. Thanks. 


Register to reply 
Related Discussions  
Can all vector fields be described as the vector Laplacian of another vector field?  Calculus  5  
Derivative with respect to a vector  Calculus & Beyond Homework  2  
Calculate 3d vector from angles with respect to x and y axis  Precalculus Mathematics Homework  4  
Did i take this derivative of the vector right?  Calculus & Beyond Homework  5  
Derivative with respect to a vector  Calculus  3 