What is the condition for the Jacobian transformation when changing variables?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the conditions for applying the Jacobian transformation when changing variables in a multi-variable function. It is stated that one can transform the variables (u, v, w) to (s, r, t) while keeping h unchanged, leading to the equation f(u,v,w,h) du dv dw dh = G(r,s,t,h) J(r,s,t) dr ds dt dh. The key condition for this transformation is that the transformation must be "nice," which typically means it is smooth and invertible. Additionally, to maintain consistency, it is suggested to treat h as a fourth variable, denoting the new variable as h'. The transformation is valid as long as these conditions are met.
femas
Messages
7
Reaction score
0
Hi,

Assume that I have f(u,v,w,h) du dv dw dh and I need only to change three variables (u, v, w) say to other variables called (s, r, t) and keep h as is it is

So my question can I write this as

f(u,v,w,h) du dv dw dh = G(r,s,t,h) J(r,s,t) dr ds dt dh

where J is jacobian transformation. What is the condition that has to be satisfied?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You can always do it (as long as the transformation is nice). If you want to be completely consistent, let h' (new) = h (old) so you will be working with a four variable transformation.
 
Thanks for your reply!
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top