Any notation for component-by-component vector multiplication?


by Curl
Tags: componentbycomponent, multiplication, notation, vector
Curl
Curl is offline
#1
Apr23-11, 06:09 PM
P: 751
I have a scalar function and a vector function and I need to make a scalar function as so:

k=[kx ky kz]
T=T(x,y,z)

Function I want:

div(k ? gradT) where "?" would be some operator that multiplies each component of k and gradT to make the vector [kx ∂T/dx , ky ∂T/∂y , kz ∂T/∂z]

that way I can apply the divergence operator and get:
∂/∂x (kx ∂T/∂x) + ∂/∂y (ky ∂T/∂y) + ∂/∂z (kz ∂T/∂z)

So is there some way to express this using elementary notation?
Phys.Org News Partner Mathematics news on Phys.org
Researchers help Boston Marathon organizers plan for 2014 race
'Math detective' analyzes odds for suspicious lottery wins
Pseudo-mathematics and financial charlatanism
arsenal997
arsenal997 is offline
#2
Apr23-11, 10:09 PM
P: 3
Certeinly there is a notation of that operator, in general if you want to have a operator of that kind you have to put:

[tex]k\nabla\cdot(A)[/tex]

Where A is the vector field that you want to operate.

Greetings
AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#3
Apr23-11, 10:37 PM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284
Quote Quote by arsenal997 View Post
Certeinly there is a notation of that operator, in general if you want to have a operator of that kind you have to put:

[tex]k\nabla\cdot(A)[/tex]

Where A is the vector field that you want to operate.

Greetings
k is a vector... what is [tex] \vec k \nabla [/tex] ??

AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#4
Apr23-11, 10:51 PM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284

Any notation for component-by-component vector multiplication?


I believe it will be

[tex] \vec \nabla \cdot \left( ( \vec \nabla T)^T \cdot I_3 \vec k \right)^T [/tex]

I think this works
AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#5
Apr23-11, 10:53 PM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284
Oh yes... the superscript T means transpose. Treat grad T as a 3 X 1 matrix, and k also as a 3 X 1 matrix. I3 is just the identity matrix for R3.
AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#6
Apr23-11, 11:18 PM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284
Actually...

[tex] \left( ( \mathbf{ \nabla } T)^T \mathbf{ I_3 } \textbf{ k } \right) \mathbf{ \nabla } [/tex]

This may be a better way to put it. If we interpret nabla as a 3 X 1 matrix and k is also a 3 X 1 matrix
Curl
Curl is offline
#7
Apr24-11, 12:34 AM
P: 751
I can't see what you are trying to do. The Identity matrix does nothing, and multiplying a 1x3 matrix by a 1x3 is not defined.
AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#8
Apr24-11, 09:23 AM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284
Quote Quote by Curl View Post
I can't see what you are trying to do. The Identity matrix does nothing, and multiplying a 1x3 matrix by a 1x3 is not defined.
when you multiply k by the identity you get a diagonal matrix with the components of k along the diagonals. Then when you multiply the transpose of the gradient of T by this 3 X 3 matrix you get a 1 X 3 matrix inside of the parenthesis. Then the nabla matrix is 3 X 1 so we have a 1 X 3 multiplied by a 3 X 1 which gives the sum of the products of the components.
AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#9
Apr24-11, 09:25 AM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284
Quote Quote by AlexChandler View Post
when you multiply k by the identity you get a diagonal matrix with the components of k along the diagonals. Then when you multiply the transpose of the gradient of T by this 3 X 3 matrix you get a 1 X 3 matrix inside of the parenthesis. Then the nabla matrix is 3 X 1 so we have a 1 X 3 multiplied by a 3 X 1 which gives the sum of the products of the components.
Haha I am sorry you are absolutely right. Let me think about this for a moment
AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#10
Apr24-11, 09:59 AM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284
If you can find an operation that will transform k into a diagonal matrix, then the above function should work if you replace I3 k with that operation.
Rasalhague
Rasalhague is offline
#11
Apr24-11, 11:37 AM
P: 1,400
You could express it with the dyadic product as

[tex]\nabla \cdot \text{diag}(\textbf{k} \otimes \nabla T) = \nabla \cdot \text{diag}([k] [\nabla T]^T),[/tex]

taking "diag" to mean "form a vector whose components are the diagonal entries of this matrix". Here [k] is a 3x1 matrix (a column vector), and the transpose of [del T] a 1x3 matrix (row vector), so that their product is a 3x3 matrix.

Or simply use the summation sign:

[tex]\sum_{i=1}^{n} \partial_i (k_i \partial_i T) = \sum_{i=1}^{n} \frac{\partial }{\partial x_i}\left ( k_i \frac{\partial T}{\partial x_i} \right ).[/tex]
AlexChandler
AlexChandler is offline
#12
Apr24-11, 01:04 PM
AlexChandler's Avatar
P: 284
Quote Quote by Rasalhague View Post
You could express it with the dyadic product as

[tex]\nabla \cdot \text{diag}(\textbf{k} \otimes \nabla T) = \nabla \cdot \text{diag}([k] [\nabla T]^T),[/tex]

taking "diag" to mean "form a vector whose components are the diagonal entries of this matrix".
Nice! This is the kind of thing I was trying to find. What course can you take to cover these kinds of operations? A second semester of linear algebra?
Rasalhague
Rasalhague is offline
#13
Apr25-11, 06:46 AM
P: 1,400
I don't know. I'm learning this stuff from books and the internet, and have never formally taken a course in linear algebra, so I don't know where and when such things would normally be taught. There's a section on dyadics in Snider & Davis: Vector Analysis, 6th edition. Gilbert Strang demonstrates the technique of making an n x n matrix out of vectors by multiplying a column vector by its transpose on the right in one of his MIT linear algebra lectures, which are online here

http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathemati...ideo-lectures/

Looking at the titles, it's probably Lecture 16: Projection matrices and least squares, or perhaps Lecture 15: Projections onto subspaces. Another place I've seen something similar is in presentations of the relativistic velocity-addition formula, and that did involve the identity matrix. I thought there was an example on the Wikipedia page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity_addition But it looks like they've replaced it now; or maybe it was a different page where I saw it. I can post details if you're interested.

The projection matrix idea works like this. Suppose we want to project a vector x onto a vectot a, then we can this as a matrix equation:

[tex]\frac{a^Tx}{a^T a} \; a = \frac{aa^T}{a^T a} \; x = Px.[/tex]

(If a is unit length, we don't need to worry about the denominator.)


Register to reply

Related Discussions
Splitting wave equation into x-component and y-component Classical Physics 16
Resolve vector component Precalculus Mathematics Homework 7
Vector z-component General Math 6
Vector Component Sum Introductory Physics Homework 1
component(vector) Introductory Physics Homework 5