Derivative involving Summation Notation

Lucid Dreamer
Messages
25
Reaction score
0
Hello, I am looking at a derivation that involves (note x is a column vector)
\frac {d(\vec{x}^T\vec{x})} {d\vec{x}} = \vec{x}^{T}

So I convert to summation notation and evaluate as follows
\sum_{i,j} \frac {d(x_{i}x^{i})} {dx^{j}}
\sum_{i,j} \frac {dx_{i}} {dx^{j}} x^{i} + \sum_{i,j} x_{i} \frac {dx^{i}} {dx^{j}}
\sum_{i,j} \frac {dx_{i}} {dx^{j}} x^{i} + \sum_{i,j} x_{i} \delta_{ij}
\sum_{i,j} \frac {dx_{i}} {dx^{j}} x^{i} + \sum_{i} x_{i}

So I do recover the answer in the second term, but I am not sure what the derivative in the first term means. This derivative is of a row vector with respect to a column vector.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I am not familiar with the notation here, but I suspect dxi/dxj = 0 for i ≠ j.
 
I have only encountered this notation in metric spaces.
You will need to write the covector field Fi(x) = xi as a function of the vector field Gi(x) = xi. This depends on the inner product of the vector space you are working in. If the induced metric of your space is M, then xi = Mijxj. Thus, (d/dxj)(xi) = (d/dxj)(Mikxk). If the components of the metric Mik are constants, then we have (d/dxj)(Mikxk) = Mik(d/dxj)(xk) = Mikδkj = Mij.
If your metric is the standard Euclidean metric, then Mij = δij, so
\sum_{i, j} \frac{dx_i}{dx^j}x^i = \sum_{i, j} \delta_{ij} x^i = \sum_j x_j
If your metric is not standard Euclidean, you replace it as above.
 
Last edited:
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top