Help with Vector Calculus Formula

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around understanding and deriving a specific vector calculus formula involving the curl of a cross product. Participants are seeking clarification on the formula's validity and methods for deriving it, particularly in the context of preparing for an exam.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related, Mathematical reasoning, Conceptual clarification

Main Points Raised

  • One participant requests assistance in understanding why the formula for the curl of a cross product is an equality, expressing a desire to avoid mere memorization.
  • Another participant suggests expanding both sides of the equation in components, preferably using Einstein summation convention, to verify its truth.
  • A different participant indicates a focus on rules that could be useful during an exam, emphasizing the need for a derivation method rather than memorization.
  • One participant relates the formula to the bac-cab rule for triple cross products, explaining how the terms fit within that framework and discussing the role of the gradient operator.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing priorities regarding the discussion: some seek a derivation method while others focus on verification. No consensus is reached on a specific approach or understanding of the formula.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not resolved the assumptions or dependencies related to the use of the gradient operator and the nature of the vectors involved in the formula.

Who May Find This Useful

Students preparing for exams in vector calculus, individuals interested in mathematical derivations, and those seeking clarification on vector calculus identities.

niehls
Messages
24
Reaction score
0
Hi. I have this exam in vector calculus tomorrow, but I'm having trouble sorting the following formula out. Could someone help me on the track or show me why this is an equality. Feels meaningsless to merely memorize the formula.
[tex] \nabla \times (\bar{u} \times \bar{v}) = (\bar{v} \cdot \nabla) \bar{u} - \bar{v} (\nabla \cdot \bar{u}) + \bar{u} (\nabla \cdot \bar{v}) - (\bar{u} \cdot \nabla) \bar{v}[/tex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
expand each side in components (preferably use the einstein summation convention to make it easier) to verify if it is true.
 
i was more thinking about some rules i can use when I'm sitting at my exam, can't remember the formula and need to derive it... I'm sure it's pretty easily proved but that's not really what i need.
 
The way I think of it is in terms of the bac-cab rule you use for triple cross products:

[tex]\vec a \times (\vec b \times \vec c) = \vec b (\vec a \cdot \vec c) - \vec c (\vec a \cdot \vec b)[/tex]

The first and last terms of the identity you displayed fit the bac-cab rule. Obviously, the [itex]\nabla[/itex] has to operate on something so the dot products get placed before the vector corresponding the grad operator. You can think of the middle two terms as compensating for the fact that [itex]\nabla \vec a[/itex] and [itex]\nabla \vec b[/itex] are tensors and remove terms that don't belong in the bac-cab expansion.
 

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K