MHB Calculation in proof of Poincare's Lemma

  • Thread starter Thread starter oblixps
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Calculation Proof
oblixps
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
A_{j_{1}...j_{p}} is a (0, p) tensor defined in a star shaped region of some point P where the coordinates x^1 = ... = x^n = 0.

in the course of proving Poincare's lemma my book does the following: \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}(tx^h) = \frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial x^l}\frac{\partial(tx^l)}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial x^l} t\delta^{l}_{j} = t\frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial x^l}.

what I'm confused about is why didn't the book do \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}(tx^h) = \frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial (tx^l)}\frac{\partial(tx^l)}{\partial x^j}.

what happened to that t in the "denominator" of the first fraction in the chain rule?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
i was looking around on google and i ran across this related result in some lecture slides.

letting g(t) = f(tx, ty) and using the chain rule:

g'(t) = (\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})(tx, ty) * x + (\frac{\partial f}{\partial y})(tx, ty) * y.

once again i am confused on why they wrote \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} instead of \frac{\partial f}{\partial (tx)}.
 
At the risk of getting an infraction from one of our moderators, I'm going to bump this thread as the OP has waited a bit and posted more info yet hasn't been helped. If possible I'd help myself but alas, this problem is out of my league.
 
Hi oblixps, :)

oblixps said:
A_{j_{1}...j_{p}} is a (0, p) tensor defined in a star shaped region of some point P where the coordinates x^1 = ... = x^n = 0.

in the course of proving Poincare's lemma my book does the following: \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}(tx^h) = \frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial x^l}\frac{\partial(tx^l)}{\partial x^j} = \frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial x^l} t\delta^{l}_{j} = t\frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial x^l}.

what I'm confused about is why didn't the book do \frac{\partial}{\partial x^j}A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}(tx^h) = \frac{\partial A_{j_{1}...j_{p}}}{\partial (tx^l)}\frac{\partial(tx^l)}{\partial x^j}.

what happened to that t in the "denominator" of the first fraction in the chain rule?

Can you please tell me what your book is...

oblixps said:
i was looking around on google and i ran across this related result in some lecture slides.

letting g(t) = f(tx, ty) and using the chain rule:

g'(t) = (\frac{\partial f}{\partial x})(tx, ty) * x + (\frac{\partial f}{\partial y})(tx, ty) * y.

once again i am confused on why they wrote \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} instead of \frac{\partial f}{\partial (tx)}.

... and the web-link where you found the above statement.

Kind Regards,
Sudharaka.
 
thanks for the reply.

the book I'm using is "Tensors, Differential Forms, and Variational Principles" by Lovelock and Rund. Just in case you have access to a copy, it should be on page 143.

and the lecture slides I referred to are from: http://www.math.upenn.edu/~ryblair/Math 600/papers/Lec1.pdf

the result i posted is on slide 22 and is what starts off one of the proofs.
 
I posted this question on math-stackexchange but apparently I asked something stupid and I was downvoted. I still don't have an answer to my question so I hope someone in here can help me or at least explain me why I am asking something stupid. I started studying Complex Analysis and came upon the following theorem which is a direct consequence of the Cauchy-Goursat theorem: Let ##f:D\to\mathbb{C}## be an anlytic function over a simply connected region ##D##. If ##a## and ##z## are part of...
Back
Top