Undergrad How do I format equations correctly? (Curl, etc.)

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the correct formatting and manipulation of equations involving vectors and scalars in vector calculus. It emphasizes that if 'a' is a scalar, forming a dot product with a vector is not valid, and expressions like 'w ∂v/∂z' may not make sense if both w and v are vectors. The importance of using component form to clarify operations and identify patterns is highlighted, as well as the potential need to transition to tensor notation for clarity. The conversation suggests that understanding the underlying mathematics is crucial rather than merely rearranging symbols. Overall, proper handling of vector calculus requires careful consideration of the types of quantities involved.
Brix12
Messages
1
Reaction score
0
A question in advance: How do I format equations correctly?

Let's say

$$\mathbf{k}\cdot\nabla\times(a\cdot\mathbf{w}\frac{\partial\,\mathbf{v}}{\partial\,z})$$
- a is a scalar

Can I rewrite the expression such that

$$a\cdot\mathbf{k}\cdot\nabla\mathbf{w}\times(\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial\,z})$$

In particular:
- Why is this possible? $$\nabla\times(\mathbf{w}\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial\,z})=\nabla\mathbf{w}\times\frac{\partial\mathbf{v}}{\partial\,z}$$

Many thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
None of what you have written makes sense. If ##a## is a scalar, you cannot form the dot product of ##a## with a vector. If ##\mathbf w## and ##\mathbf v## are vectors, then ##\mathbf w \frac{\partial \mathbf v}{\partial z}## makes no sense. Nor does ##\nabla \mathbf w##.

You can only take ##a## outside the derivative if it is constant.
 
It's not really about "formatting"... but it's about using an identity to rewrite an expression.

Given expressions like yours that are unfamiliar,
it's probably a good idea to
write things out in component-form, and carry out the operations. even though it may be tedious.
Then look for patterns to re-group terms.
Otherwise, you're just shuffling symbols with little understanding.

The context of these equations may also be good to display.

It may be that some of your vector-calculus looking expressions are actually tensor equations
 
PeroK said:
None of what you have written makes sense. If ##a## is a scalar, you cannot form the dot product of ##a## with a vector. If ##\mathbf w## and ##\mathbf v## are vectors, then ##\mathbf w \frac{\partial \mathbf v}{\partial z}## makes no sense. Nor does ##\nabla \mathbf w##.

If \mathbf{a} and \mathbf{b} are vectors, then \mathbf{a}\mathbf{b} is standard notation for the tensor with cartesian components (\mathbf{a}\mathbf{b})_{ij} = a_ib_j. This notation is introduced, for example, on pages 441ff of Boas (2nd edition). \nabla \mathbf{w} is then the tensor with components (\nabla \mathbf{w})_{ij} = \frac{\partial w_j}{\partial x_i} = \partial_i w_j.

This is about the point where vector notation should be abandoned in favour of suffices, as it becomes increasingly unclear which axes are involved in contractions.
 
There are probably loads of proofs of this online, but I do not want to cheat. Here is my attempt: Convexity says that $$f(\lambda a + (1-\lambda)b) \leq \lambda f(a) + (1-\lambda) f(b)$$ $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (f(a) - f(b))$$ We know from the intermediate value theorem that there exists a ##c \in (b,a)## such that $$\frac{f(a) - f(b)}{a-b} = f'(c).$$ Hence $$f(b + \lambda(a-b)) \leq f(b) + \lambda (a - b) f'(c))$$ $$\frac{f(b + \lambda(a-b)) - f(b)}{\lambda(a-b)}...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
481
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
538
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
679
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K