Cartesian coordinates to Polar coordinates (dx,dy question)

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the transformation from Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates, specifically addressing the computation of differentials dx and dy during this change of variables. Participants explore the mathematical implications of using polar coordinates in integrals and the necessity of employing the Jacobian determinant in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant states the standard transformation equations for converting Cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates: x = rcos(t) and y = rsin(t), and questions the method of computing dx and dy using these transformations.
  • Another participant suggests that when computing differentials, terms like dr² and dt² should be disregarded as they represent nilpotent variables, implying a specific mathematical treatment of these differentials.
  • A different viewpoint emphasizes that differentials dx and dy are not ordinary numbers and cannot be manipulated like regular variables unless the new coordinates are independent, highlighting the need for the Jacobian determinant in cases where the coordinates are mixed.
  • One participant illustrates the geometric interpretation of variable transformations, noting that while certain transformations preserve rectangular shapes, others may lead to more complex figures, necessitating the use of the Jacobian determinant to accurately compute areas.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the treatment of differentials during the transformation process. There is no consensus on whether the standard multiplication of differentials is appropriate in this context, and the necessity of the Jacobian determinant remains a point of contention.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention specific mathematical properties of differentials and the implications of coordinate transformations, but the discussion does not resolve the underlying assumptions or limitations of the methods being debated.

2sin54
Messages
109
Reaction score
1
The usual change of variables in this case (mentioned in the title of this topic) is this:
##x = rcos(t)##
##y = rsin(t)##

When I rewrite (say my integral) in polar coordinates I have to change ##dxdy## to ##rdrdt##

My question is why can't I just compute dx and dy the usual way (the already mentioned change of variables) meaning finding the complete differentials dx and dy, multiplying them together, etc.?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Try it, just remember that the dr^2 and dt^2 terms must be crossed out (they are Grassmann variables and nilpotent or equivalently they represent differential area of parallelogram with both sides in the dr direction (or both in the dt direction) which is thus zero.).
 
Mathematically speaking the differentials ##dx## and ##dy## are not ordinary numbers that you can simply divide/multply since they are defined through a limit process. However, you can use your "multiplication thumb rule" only when the new coordinate are independent from each other, i.e. when you have something like ##x=f(x^\prime)##, ##y=g(y^\prime)##, without mixing ##x^\prime## and ##y^\prime##. This is simply because in this case the Jacobian matrix is diagonal. Otherwise you have to include the determinant of the Jacobian.
 
Consider a rectangle with corners (x,y),(x+h,y),(x+h,y+k),(x,y+k).

If you make a change of variables x = f(u), y = g(v) then in the u,v coordinate system, the rectangle is still a rectangle of some sort although the length of its sides may be different. The area of the transformed figure is still its width times its height.

However if you make a change of variables of the form x = p(s,t), y = q(s,t) then in the s,t coordinate system the figure may no longer be nearly a rectangle. It could be a quadrilateral with no side parallel to either axis. Hence it may not even have a "width" and "height". The procedure that uses the Jacobian determinant uses the idea of approximating the quadrilateral by a parallelogram.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K