Fundemental lemma of the calculus of variations

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the Euler-Lagrange equation within the context of the calculus of variations. The original poster is examining a specific derivation and questioning the treatment of a term in the total derivative.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand why a specific term in the total derivative is considered to be zero, questioning the implications of boundary conditions. Other participants raise the possibility that the term may indeed be zero, prompting further exploration of the derivation.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging with the derivation and its implications. Some suggest that the original poster's understanding may be limited by the presentation in the reference material, while others express confidence in the derivation itself. There is no explicit consensus, but the discussion is progressing with various interpretations being explored.

Contextual Notes

The original poster references a specific wiki entry and expresses confusion over the treatment of terms in the derivation, indicating a need for deeper exploration of the assumptions involved.

TooFastTim
Messages
12
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Hi, I've been revising the calculus of variations and using the wiki entry on the euler lagrange equation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler-Lagrange_equation) as a reference. Scroll down and you'll see: Derivation of one-dimensional Euler–Lagrange equation. Expand this. In it you'll see the statement: "It follows from the total derivative that" and:

dF/dε= dx/dε*∂F/∂x + dgε/dε*∂F/∂gε + dg'ε/dε*∂Fε/∂g'ε

Homework Equations



What happened to the first term (dx/dε*∂F/∂x)?

The Attempt at a Solution



I understand that the first term has gone to zero. But how? If π(a) and π(b) both = 0 surely f(x) is a line with f(x) = 0? In which case it is clear that that term will go to zero.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't ##dx/d\varepsilon =0##?
 
I think I have it. The description in wiki is a little limited (alternatively my imagination is limited :smile:) so by a little mixing and matching of proofs I think I have found it.

Thanks anyway.
 
I don't see any obvious problem with the derivation on Wikipedia other than it throws in the unnecessary term that seems to have confused you.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K