A Dot Del

  • Thread starter Swapnil
  • Start date
  • #1
459
5

Main Question or Discussion Point

Why is it that

[tex]\vec{A}\cdot\nabla \neq \nabla\cdot\vec{A}[/tex]

?

edit: sorry about that. fixed the typo.
 
Last edited:

Answers and Replies

  • #2
453
0
I assume there is some kind of typo in this question?
 
  • #3
1,074
1
Why is it that

[tex]\vec{A}\cdot\nabla \neq \vec{A}\cdot\nabla[/tex]

?
Did you mean [tex]\vec{A}\cdot\nabla \neq \nabla\cdot\vec{A}[/tex]?

If so then evaluate them both, what do you notice?
 
  • #4
dextercioby
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Insights Author
12,981
540
The first is a differential operator, while the second is a number (value of a function).
 
  • #5
George Jones
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
7,273
808
Why is it that

[tex]\vec{A}\cdot\nabla \neq \nabla\cdot\vec{A}[/tex]

?

edit: sorry about that. fixed the typo.
Apply both sides to an arbitary function f = f(x,y,xz). What do you get?
 
  • #6
"Dot Del" is what is technically referred to as an "abuse of notation". Of course, some people consider del to be an abuse of notation in itself.

You see, by itself [tex]\nabla[/tex] is just [tex](\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}, \ldots , \frac{\partial}{\partial x_n})[/tex]. It's nice but all the derivatives have the same coefficient on them (i.e. one).

To allow for more general operators we use [tex]A \cdot \nabla[/tex] to stand for [tex](a_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} , a_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} , \ldots , a_n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_n})[/tex] where [tex]A = (a_1,a_2, \ldots, a_n)[/tex]. It's confusing because usually the dot product is associative, but now we're demanding it no be for [tex]\nabla[/tex].

I'm not a great fan for this notation myself, but since I've got nothing better to offer, I guess I'll just have to live with it.
 
Last edited:
  • #7
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
Abuse??
When A has the interpretation of a velocity field, then [itex]\vec{A}\cdot\nabla[/itex] has the very nice interpretation of the convective derivative operator.

The only "abuse" I'm able to see is that the "dot product" is defined for vectors, while the [itex]\nabla[/itex] operator isn't a vector at all.
However, then we must agree that [itex]\nabla\cdot\vec{A}[/itex] is an equally abusive notation.
 
Last edited:
  • #8
HallsofIvy
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
41,808
933
"Dot Del" is what is technically referred to as an "abuse of notation". Of course, some people consider del to be an abuse of notation in itself.

You see, by itself [tex]\nabla[/tex] is just [tex](\frac{\partial}{\partial x_1},\frac{\partial}{\partial x_2}, \ldots , \frac{\partial}{\partial x_n})[/tex]. It's nice but all the derivatives have the same coefficient on them (i.e. one).

To allow for more general operators we use [tex]A \cdot \nabla[/tex] to stand for [tex](a_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} , a_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} , \ldots , a_n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_n})[/tex]
No, it's not. [itex]A \cdot \nabla[/itex] is
[tex](a_1 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_1} + a_2 \frac{\partial}{\partial x_2} + \ldots + a_n \frac{\partial}{\partial x_n})[/tex]
 

Related Threads on A Dot Del

Replies
8
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
10
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
5
Views
13K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • Last Post
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
24
Views
6K
  • Last Post
Replies
4
Views
2K
Top