- #1

silmaril89

- 86

- 0

I'm trying to understand the derivation of the Euler-Lagrange equation from the classical action. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action...93Lagrange_equations_for_the_action_integral" has been my main source so far. The issue I'm having is proving the following equivalence:

[tex]

\int_{t_1}^{t_2} [L(x_{true} + \varepsilon, \dot{x}_{true} + \dot{\varepsilon},t) - L(x_{true}, \dot{x}_{true},t)] \mathrm{d}t = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} (\varepsilon \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} + \dot{\varepsilon} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}) \mathrm{d}t

[/tex]

I understand the idea behind their equivalence intuitively, The derivative of a function is the change in that function, and I see how on the left side there is a representation of a small change in the lagrangian, but I'm having a hard time proving this to myself mathematically and I'd like some help.

I understand all the other steps shown in the derivation.

Thanks to anyone that responds.

[tex]

\int_{t_1}^{t_2} [L(x_{true} + \varepsilon, \dot{x}_{true} + \dot{\varepsilon},t) - L(x_{true}, \dot{x}_{true},t)] \mathrm{d}t = \int_{t_1}^{t_2} (\varepsilon \frac{\partial L}{\partial x} + \dot{\varepsilon} \frac{\partial L}{\partial \dot{x}}) \mathrm{d}t

[/tex]

I understand the idea behind their equivalence intuitively, The derivative of a function is the change in that function, and I see how on the left side there is a representation of a small change in the lagrangian, but I'm having a hard time proving this to myself mathematically and I'd like some help.

I understand all the other steps shown in the derivation.

Thanks to anyone that responds.

Last edited by a moderator: