Deriviative of a multivariable function with respect to a constant?

Fractal20
Messages
71
Reaction score
1

Homework Statement


So this is arising in my applied math course in solving the wave equation in n dimensions. So we have a function u(\vec{x}+r\vec{z},t) and where x and z are n dimensional vectors and r is a scalar (also, u is a scalar function). Then when we take the partial derivative with respect to r we get:

∇u(\vec{x}+r\vec{z},t)\bullet\vec{z}
(sorry that huge dot is suppose to be a dot product)

I am just use to take derivatives of multivariable functions with respect to variables and then there is the old rule that the result is the gradient of the function dotted with the direction vector. But this is not case. I am okay with excepting this as a rule. It is the same as the single variable analog if ∇ was replaced with the partial with respect to r. But I would still like some sense of why it should be this way. Doe this result somehow follow from the limit as h approaches zero of

(1/h)*(u(\vec{x}+(r+h)\vec{z},t)-u(\vec{x}+r\vec{z},t))<br /> <br /> ? Can anybody offer some insight? Thanks<br /> <br /> <h2>Homework Equations</h2><br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> <h2>The Attempt at a Solution</h2><br />
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think you must expand u into its vector components and differentiate term by term.
It might be possible also to use the chain rule.

Without knowing the nature of u or the constituent vectors, that is all the advice I can offer.
 
Fractal20 said:

Homework Statement


So this is arising in my applied math course in solving the wave equation in n dimensions. So we have a function u(\vec{x}+r\vec{z},t) and where x and z are n dimensional vectors and r is a scalar (also, u is a scalar function). Then when we take the partial derivative with respect to r we get:

∇u(\vec{x}+r\vec{z},t)\bullet\vec{z}
(sorry that huge dot is suppose to be a dot product)

Don't be sorry, use Tex: ##\nabla u(\vec x+r \vec z,t)\cdot \vec z##
Here's what I typed to get that, it's actually easier that what you did:
Code:
##\nabla u(\vec x+r \vec z,t)\cdot \vec z##
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top