I How do you integrate eqns with indices?

JuanC97
Messages
48
Reaction score
0
Hello, I just want to clarify some things with a simple exercise: I have the equation ## \frac{\partial^2 f}{\partial A^\mu \,\partial A^\nu} = 0## and I want to integrate it once assuming that ## f=f(A^1,A^2,...,A^n)=f(A^\rho) ##.

I think the solution should be ## \frac{\partial f}{\partial A^\mu} = C_1(A^{\rho\neq\mu}) + (1-\delta_{\mu\nu})\,C_2(A^{\rho\neq\nu}) ##
where ##C_1## and ##C_2## are functions that have to be determined by initial/boundary conditions, the first term came from the integral wrt ##A^\nu## when ##\mu=\nu## and the second one when ##\mu\neq\nu##.

The big confusion arises when I think...
1. Does this really make any sense? - It just looks weird.
2. If ## \frac{\partial f}{\partial A^\mu} ## were a covariant tensor, it would make a lot more sense if I had written ## h(A_\mu) ## instead of ## h(A^\mu) ##, wouldn't it?.
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Compare to e.g. functions of two variables f(x,y). If one has

## \frac{\partial f}{ \partial x} = 0 ##

then the solution is given by

##f(x,y) = f(y)##. I.e. the usual integration constant is promoted to an "integration function of y". So I'd say that if in your case

##\frac{\partial g}{ \partial A^{\nu}} = 0##

we get that the solution is a vector field with lower index which can be any function of all the other fields you have; different fields are indepent per definition.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
977
Replies
0
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
1K
Back
Top