Gradient vector perpendicular to level curves?

Click For Summary
The gradient vector of a function is perpendicular to level curves because the directional derivative along a level curve is zero, indicating no change in function value. By considering a curve on the level surface and differentiating, it can be shown that the dot product of the gradient vector and the tangent vector to the level curve equals zero. This implies that the gradient vector is orthogonal to the tangent vector of the level curve. A rigorous proof involves understanding the definitions of the gradient, dot product, and directional derivative. Engaging with these concepts can deepen comprehension of the relationship between gradients and level curves.
princejan7
Messages
93
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



can anyone explain/prove why the gradient vector is perpendicular to level curves?

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution

 
Physics news on Phys.org
I think this could be a good exercise for you to prove yourself. I will give some pointers. You have a function ##f : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}## and level sets such that ##f(x_1,..., x_n) = c.##

Let ##\gamma(t) = (x_1(t),...,x_n(t))## be a curve on the level surface and consider ## g(t) = f(x_1(t),...,x_n(t))##. Now compute ##\frac{d}{dt}g(t)##.
 
Last edited:
The directional derivative DuF(P) of a function F in the direction of the unit vector u at the point P is equivalent to the dot product of the gradient vector ∇F(P) with the unit vector u (this is something you should prove if you have not already done so).
The value of F does not change in the direction of the tangent vector to the level curve that passes through P, since a level curve is a set of points where the value of F is constant. Therefore, the directional derivative of F in that direction is 0. Since this is equivalent to the dot product between ∇F(P) and any unit tangent vector to the level curve, and assuming neither vector is the zero vector, the two vectors must be perpendicular.
You can put each of these intuitive arguments into rigorous mathematical form in order to get a more rigorous picture.

Edit: I agree with Quesadilla (it looks like we posted at the same time). This is something you may like to prove rigorously yourself, if you understand the definition of the gradient, dot product, and directional derivative. It is a walk through a series of definitions.
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K