Deriviative of a multivariable function with respect to a constant?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on taking the partial derivative of a multivariable function, specifically the function u(\vec{x}+r\vec{z},t), with respect to the scalar r in the context of solving the wave equation in n dimensions. The result of this differentiation is expressed as ∇u(\vec{x}+r\vec{z},t)·\vec{z}, which represents the gradient of u dotted with the direction vector \vec{z}. Participants emphasize the importance of understanding this result through vector component expansion and the application of the chain rule, confirming that this approach aligns with established mathematical principles.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multivariable calculus, specifically partial derivatives.
  • Familiarity with vector calculus concepts, including gradients and dot products.
  • Knowledge of the chain rule in calculus.
  • Basic comprehension of wave equations in n-dimensional spaces.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the application of the chain rule in multivariable calculus.
  • Explore vector calculus, focusing on gradients and their geometric interpretations.
  • Learn about wave equations in n dimensions and their mathematical formulations.
  • Practice differentiation of scalar functions with respect to scalar parameters in vector contexts.
USEFUL FOR

Students in applied mathematics, particularly those studying multivariable calculus and wave equations, as well as educators seeking to clarify concepts related to partial derivatives and vector calculus.

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##
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K