Stuck on proof Proving cross product derivative

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the cross product rule for derivatives, a topic within vector calculus. Participants are exploring the necessary steps and components involved in this proof, with some expressing confusion about the process.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants suggest writing out the components of the vectors involved and taking the derivative. There are mentions of using properties of the cross product and the Levi-Civita tensor to facilitate the proof. Some participants question the relationship between the dot product and cross product proofs.

Discussion Status

Several participants have provided hints and alternative approaches to the proof, indicating a collaborative effort to clarify the process. There is an ongoing exploration of different methods, with no explicit consensus reached on a single approach.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about whether certain rules can be applied in their proof, indicating potential constraints in their understanding or the problem's requirements.

mr_coffee
Messages
1,613
Reaction score
1
Hello everyone, I'm stuck on trying to prove the cross product rule for derivatives. I Have to add the right terms and its suppose to be easy but that's what i can't figure out! any help would be great! here is what I have:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5540/opopo3ej.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
mr_coffee said:
Hello everyone, I'm stuck on trying to prove the cross product rule for derivatives. I Have to add the right terms and its suppose to be easy but that's what i can't figure out! any help would be great! here is what I have:
http://img135.imageshack.us/img135/5540/opopo3ej.jpg

One way (although not the nicest) is to write out the components and take the derivative.

[tex]u(t)=\left<x(t),y(t),z(t)\right>[/tex]

[tex]v(t)=\left<a(t),b(t),c(t)\right>[/tex]

...now take the cross product of these, and take the derivative. Once you're there, you can rearrange and get it to look like what you want.

Anyone know of a better way to do this?

Edit: Actually, use the properties of the cross product in your last equation (in the picture). Something can be said about the addition and subtraction you have.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hint: change the signs of the middle 2 terms in your bottom line, and then take a common factor of v(t + h) out of the first 2 terms and a common factor of u(t) out of the last 2 terms.

Regards,
George
 
Well, you may write that the "ith" component of the cross product is

[itex]\bigl( \vec u \times \vec v \bigr)_i = \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k[/itex]

then you can use the usual rule for the derivative of a product of functions, so that the derivative of that is simply

[itex]\epsilon_{ijk} u_j^{'} v_k + \epsilon_{ijk} u_j v_k^{'}[/itex]

so that

[itex]\bigl( \vec u \times \vec v \bigr)^{'} = \vec u^{'} \times \vec v + \vec u \times \vec v^{'}[/itex]

QED.

If you are not allowed to use the fact that the derivative of fg is f' g + fg', then you can just prove this as usual but applied on the expressions with the levi-civita tensor. That way, the proof is no more difficult than with a usual product of functions.


Patrick
 
Try this way:

[tex]y=f(t)=u(t)\cdot v(t) \hspace{2cm}\rightarrow \frac{dy}{dt}=u'(t)v(t) + v'(t)u(t) =\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{u(t+h)\cdot v(t+h) - u(t)\cdot v(t)}{h}[/tex]

[tex]= \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{u(t+h)\cdot v(t+h) - u(t)\cdot v(t)}{h} \hspace{1.5cm}\pm\frac{u(t+h)\cdot v(t)}{h}[/tex]

[tex]= \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{u(t+h)\cdot v(t+h) - u(t)\cdot v(t) + u(t+h)\cdot v(t) - u(t+h)\cdot v(t)}{h}[/tex]

[tex]=\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{u(t+h)\cdot\Bigl(v(t+h)-v(t)\Bigr) + v(t)\cdot\Bigl(u(t+h) - u(t)\Bigr)}{h}[/tex]

[tex]=v(t)\cdot\lim_{h\to 0} \frac{u(t+h)-u(t)}{h} + \lim_{h\to 0} u(t+h)\cdot \lim_{h\to 0} \frac{v(t+h)-v(t)}{h}[/tex]

[tex]= u'(t)\cdot v(t) + u(t)\cdot v'(t)[/tex]


:wink:
Regards
Roman
 
thaniks for the replies everyone, Roman, is that the proof for the dot product? Or did u mean to type cross prodcut?
 
its the proof for the dot and for the cross product. just change "dot" into "cross"
 
awesome thanks man!
 
wait, how is the dot prodcut the same as the cross product?
 
  • #10
of course is the dot product not the same as the cross product, but the proof is the same
 
  • #11
Ahh i c, it made sense once I looked back on it! Thanks Roman!
 

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
20
Views
9K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
25K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K