Problem with Integrating by parts

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter aries0152
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Integrating parts
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the integration by parts of a specific term involving the inverse Laplacian operator applied to a vector field and its time derivative. The context appears to be related to a graduate-level physics or mathematics problem.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related, Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a term to integrate by parts, which includes the inverse Laplacian applied to the curl of a vector field and its time derivative.
  • Another participant questions the clarity of the expression, noting the presence of the inverse Laplacian and expressing confusion about the notation involving vectors.
  • A third participant expresses uncertainty about the complexity of the problem, suggesting it may be beyond their understanding or indicating potential issues in prior calculations.
  • A later reply confirms the presence of the inverse Laplacian and reiterates the context of the problem being at the M.Sc. level, indicating the participant's struggle with the term.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the problem, with no consensus on how to proceed with the integration by parts. The discussion remains unresolved.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not clarified the assumptions or definitions related to the vector operations involved, and there may be unresolved mathematical steps in the integration process.

aries0152
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
I would like to integrate by parts this term-
[tex]\mu^2 (\nabla^2)^{-1} (\nabla\times B)\dot{B}[/tex]

Here [itex]B[/itex] is a vector and [itex]\dot{B}[/itex] is the time derivative of B. And [itex]\mu[/itex] is just a constant.

Can anyone help me?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
Wow, where did you encounter this, i can't see tex where I am sitting, but it looks like you have the inverse laplacian?
 
AND you have a vector adjacent to a vector? What class is this for? This is either over my head (and/or) you took a bad turn somewhere in calculations leading up to this.
 
algebrat said:
but it looks like you have the inverse laplacian?
Yes. there is a inverse laplacian.

algebrat said:
AND you have a vector adjacent to a vector? What class is this for?
It's a problem of M.Sc. And I am stuck with this term :frown:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 31 ·
2
Replies
31
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K