(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); "directional derivative" - conventions

Warning: nitpicking notational issues ahead!

So the "directional derivative" in vector analysis - the differential rate of increase of a scalar function φ in a vector direction - is by convention* defined starting from the vector gradient (the 'del' operator): [tex]\nabla \phi \cdot \hat{u}=

\vec{\nabla} \phi(\vec{r}) | _{r_0} \cdot \hat{u}[/tex]

(the directional derivative of φ in the u-direction).

So it's not really fundamental - it's defined in terms of del-φ, which is 'more fundamental' I guess. Big deal.

*"by convention" meaning, in every one of a dozen reference books I looked through...

For example, in cartesian coordinates, a directional derivative (atr) might look like:

[tex]\vec{\nabla} \phi_r \cdot \hat{u} = \left(\hat{i}\frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{x}}| _r + \hat{j} \frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{y}} | _r + \hat{k}\frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{z}} | _r \right) \cdot \left(u_x \hat{i} + u_y \hat{j} + u_z \hat{k} \right)[/tex]

[tex]=\frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{x}}u_x +\frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{y}}u_y + \frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{z}}u_z [/tex]

So, the vectoruis decomposed into some coordinate axes,andthe derivatives of the scalar function are foundwith respect tothose three axes, and things are scalar-multiplied and added together. Your definition of the directional derivatives goes through a coordinate system, of your preference - through the definitions of the del operator.

But why not define this directly, in the usual manner for defining a derivative:

[tex]\lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0^+} \frac{\phi (\vec{r} + \lambda \hat{u} ) - \phi (\vec{r})}{\lambda}[/tex]

Which is the same thing, without those coordinate decompositions,

[tex]d \phi = \frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{x}}dx + \frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{y}}dy + \frac{\partial{\phi}}{\partial{z}}dz[/tex]

[tex]\mbox{and, } d \vec{u} = \hat{i} d(u_x) + \hat{j}d(u_y) + \hat{k}d(u_z)??[/tex]

Because [itex]d \phi[/itex] looks well-defined to me. And so does [itex]d \vec{u} = \hat{u} d \lambda[/itex]. So then, why don't we just say, without ambiguity,

[tex]\frac{d \phi}{d \vec{u}} \right| _r \equiv \lim_{\lambda \rightarrow 0^+} \frac{\phi (\vec{r} + \lambda \hat{u} ) - \phi (\vec{r})}{\lambda}[/tex]

(with the normalized direction [tex]\hat{u} = \vec{u} / \| \vec{u} \| [/tex] ) ?!

So as to eliminate any reference to the coordinate system?

I mean, when we're taking the usual partial derivatives, with respect to say the "x" axis, that's just a 'directional' derivative in the [itex]\hat{x}[/itex] direction. So, can we not generalize this to any (normalized) vector direction, and so define the derivative of a scalar function with respect to a vector?

That's my question - is this notation rigorous enough?

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Directional derivative - conventions

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**