1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Derivative of a dot product

  1. Jun 17, 2006 #1
    I have come across something that seems a little strange to me. The derivative of a dot product is something similar to the product rule. I am having difficulties grasping this. Isn't the dot product of two vectors a scalar? And then I always thought of a scalar as a real number and the derivative of a real number is 0. So why does a theorem similar to the product rule exist and work?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 17, 2006 #2

    robphy

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    A "scalar" is generally a "scalar function"... which is not necessarily a "scalar constant". The derivative of a constant is what is zero.
     
  4. Jun 18, 2006 #3
    Of two constant vectors, yes, the dot product is a constant (and a scalar). But when you consider vector functions, e.g.
    T(x)=exp(x)i + log(x)j
    U(x)=cos(x)i + csc(x)j
    Then the dot-product of these will definitely not be a constant -- it will be the quantity exp(x)cos(x) + log(x)csc(x). That's where the formula is useful. You'll find that if T and U are constant vectors, then the formula will give you the expected result: 0.
     
    Last edited: Jun 18, 2006
  5. Jun 19, 2006 #4

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    product rule

    it helps to know what a derivative is, i.e. that a derivative is a continuous linear map that approximates the difference in the values of the original map.

    Take the multiplication map RxR-->R taking (x,y)-->xy. This is a bilinear map and its derivative at (a,b) is a linear map L(s,t) such that if x = a+s, y = b+t, then the difference xy-ab is approximated by the linear map L(s,t) to within an error which vanishes faster than (s,t) as (x,y) approaches (a,b).

    In this case take L(s,t) = at+bs. Then the difference xy-ab differs from at+bs by the error term xy-ab - at-bs = (a+s)(b+t)-ab-at-bs = st, which does vanish faster than either s or t as (s,t) goes to zero.

    so the derivative of xy, at (a,b), as a linear map on RxR, is the map taking (s,t) to at+bs. To get the leibniz rule, compose the derivative (f'(c),g'(c)) of a differentiable map R->RxR defined by a pair (f,g), with the derivative of multiplication taken at (f(c),g(c)).

    This gives the linear map taking r to (f'(c)g(c)+f(c)g'(c))r.

    as usually taught in elemenmtary calculus, this linear map is referred to only by the unique entry in tis 1by1 matrix, namely the number f'(c)g(c)+f(c)g'(c).


    The same proof works for any continuous bilinear map, modulo the fact that commutativity does not always hold.

    So the derivative of a possibly non commutative continuous bilinear map VxW-->U at a point (a,b), where V,W,U are complete normed vector spaces, maps (s,t) to (bs+at). and so the derivative of a product map fg:X-->U, viewed as a composite X-->VxV-->U where VxV-->U is a bilinear product, and (f,g) define the map X-->VxV, at the point c in X, is the linear map X-->U taking x in X to, what else? some plausible continuous linear function of x with values in U, namely [I guess] f’(c)(x).g(c) + f(c).g’(c)(x).

    Hows that look?
    :smile:
     
    Last edited: Jun 19, 2006
  6. Jun 19, 2006 #5

    mathwonk

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    if this seems confusing, it is. i not long ago had an anonymous referee for a research paper of mine, object to a statement i made about the derivative of a bilinear map, which statement however was completely correct. so even professionals are confused by these things at times.


    but this is a lesson in elarning the right definition of a derivative, as a linear approximation to the difference map f(x)-f(a), linear in (x-a) that is.

    i also had a professional analyst friend make a mistake on this latter score in a prelim exam, confusing linearity in x with linearity in (x-a).
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?