Proof of product rule for gradients

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the proof of the product rule for gradients involving the del operator (∇) and the dot product of vector fields A and B. It clarifies that while the dot product A·B produces a scalar, applying the del operator to this scalar function yields a vector field, not zero, unless the dot product is constant. The confusion arises from the interpretation of vector fields versus scalars, emphasizing that the gradient of a scalar field results in a vector field.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus, specifically the del operator (∇)
  • Knowledge of scalar and vector fields
  • Familiarity with the dot product of vectors
  • Concept of gradients in multivariable calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the del operator (∇) in vector calculus
  • Learn about scalar fields and vector fields in physics and mathematics
  • Explore the implications of the product rule for gradients in various contexts
  • Investigate the relationship between vector fields and their gradients in applied scenarios
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering, particularly those focusing on vector calculus and its applications in fields such as fluid dynamics and electromagnetism.

Alvise_Souta
Messages
4
Reaction score
1
product rule.png

Can someone please help me prove this product rule? I'm not accustomed to seeing the del operator used on a dot product. My understanding tells me that a dot product produces a scalar and I'm tempted to evaluate the left hand side as scalar 0 but the rule says it yields a vector. I'm very confused
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Alvise_Souta said:
My understanding tells me that a dot product produces a scalar and I'm tempted to evaluate the left hand side as scalar 0 but the rule says it yields a vector.
Del operator ##\nabla## is a vector operator, following the rule for well-defined operations involving a vector and a scalar, a del operator can be multiplied by a scalar using the usual product. ##\mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{B}## is a scalar, but a vector (operator) ##\nabla## comes in from the left, therefore the "product" ##\nabla (\mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{B})## will yield a vector.
 
So it becomes a vector because it doesn't evaluate to 0 since the del operator is used on a scalar function rather than a scalar constant?
 
Alvise_Souta said:
So it becomes a vector because it doesn't evaluate to 0 since the del operator is used on a scalar function rather than a scalar constant?
Well that's a matter of whether ##\mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{B}## is coordinate dependent or not. If this dot product turns out to be constant, then ##\nabla(\mathbf{A}\cdot \mathbf{B})=0##.
 
A and B are meant to be interpreted as vector fields (physics texts frequently conflate vector fields with vectors, using the word "vector" to refer to both vectors and vector fields, where the exact meaning is meant to be gleaned from context): functions that assign a unique vector to each point. The dot product of two vector fields is therefore a scalar field, as it is meant to be interpreted as the function that assigns the dot product of the two vectors assigned by A and B, respectively, at each point to each point. The gradient of a scalar field is a vector field (or covector field, depending on how formal you want to get).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K