Differentiation of vector function

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that for a differentiable mapping \( f \) from \( \mathbb{R}^1 \) to \( \mathbb{R}^3 \) with the property that \( |f(t)| = 1 \) for all \( t \), it follows that \( f'(t) \cdot f(t) = 0 \). Participants explore the implications of the given condition and the appropriate mathematical notations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the relationship between the differentiable function and its norm, questioning how to utilize the condition \( |f(t)| = 1 \) to derive the desired result. There is also a debate about the proper notation for derivatives and gradients in this context.

Discussion Status

The discussion has seen various interpretations of the problem, with some participants suggesting the use of the product rule and others clarifying the notation used for derivatives. While one participant claims to have found a solution, the conversation remains open with differing perspectives on the mathematical approach.

Contextual Notes

There are indications of confusion regarding the application of the gradient and the dot product in the context of vector functions. Participants also express challenges related to the clarity of the notation and the nature of the transformation involved.

boombaby
Messages
129
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


suppose f is a differentiable mapping of R1 into R3 such that |f(t)|=1 for every t. Prove that [tex]f'(t)\cdot f(t)=0[/tex].
I guess it is more proper to write [tex](\nabla f)(t) \cdot f(t)=0[/tex], where [tex](\nabla f)(t)[/tex] is the gradient of f ant t.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


it is then equivalent to prove [tex]\sum\;(Df_{i})(t)\cdot f_{i}(t)=0[/tex], but I've no idea of how to use the |f(t)|=1 to deduce the disired results, although the equation has an easy geometrically interpretation
Any hint may help, thanks a lot.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The f'(t) notation is fine. f(t) is a vector. You generally use the gradient notation for scalar functions, not vectors. And |f(t)|=1 is the same as saying f(t).f(t)=1, right?
 
just differentiate both side and it is done...Thanks!
and thanks for the explanation about gradient...I misunderstood it...
Here is why I thought it improper..f'(t) is a linear transformation from R^1->R^3, whose basis are different things from the basis of R^3, so I thought it is weird to apply the dot product to f'(t) and f(t)...
 
For functions of a single variable it's simpler just to think of f'(t) as an element of R^3 rather than as a linear transformation. If f(t)=(x(t),y(t),z(t)), f'(t)=(x'(t),y'(t),z'(t)).
 
it took me years to open and refresh this forums...my connecting to some websites sucks...
Thinking of it as a vector in R3 is okay and easy. okay, I found it more sensible in this way.
take 1 as a basis of R^1. So f'(t)(1) = [tex]\sum^{3}_{1} (Df_{i})(t)e_{i}[/tex], where e_i is the basis of R^3, and dot product makes sense
 
Sure, the linear transformation is f'(t)(h)=(x'(t),y'(t),z'(t))*h. That can be identified with a vector in R^3 in a pretty obvious way. I would say you are just throwing the 'h' away altogether.
 
Saying |f(t)|= 1 is the same as saying [itex]f(t)\cdot f(t)= 1[/itex]. Use the product rule.
 
it's been solved, Thanks anyway:)
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K