Prove ∇(A x B) = (∇ x A)⋅B - (∇ x B)⋅A where A,B are vectors

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter goggles31
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Vectors
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on proving the vector calculus identity ∇(A x B) = (∇ x A)⋅B - (∇ x B)⋅A, where A and B are vectors. Participants explore different approaches to this proof, including the application of vector identities and the properties of divergence and curl operators.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests proving the identity by expanding A and B as components but expresses confusion over an alternative approach that leads to an incomplete result.
  • Another participant clarifies that the divergence operator ∇ behaves differently from a vector dot product, implying a misunderstanding in the original approach.
  • A third participant points out that the mixture of products in the original post is incorrect and suggests using specific vector identities like the Graßmann-identity or Jacobi-identity to clarify the relationships between the vectors.
  • Further contributions emphasize that the divergence operator is not associative and highlight the nature of ∇ as an operator with components rather than as numbers.
  • Some participants note that derivative operators satisfy the Leibniz rule, which is related to the Jacobi-identity and the definition of a derivation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the application of vector identities and the properties of divergence and curl operators. There is no consensus on the correct approach to proving the identity, and confusion remains regarding the operations involved.

Contextual Notes

Some assumptions about the properties of vector operations and the definitions of divergence and curl may not be fully articulated, leading to potential misunderstandings in the discussion.

goggles31
Messages
33
Reaction score
0
I can prove this relationship by defining A = (A1,A2,A3) and B=(B1,B2,B3) and expanding but I tried another approach and failed.

I read that for any 3 vectors,
a⋅(b x c) = (a x b)⋅c
and thus applying this to the equation, I only get
(A x B) = ( x A)⋅B
Can anyone explain why this is so?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
That should be the divergence operator ## \nabla \cdot (A \times B ) ## ,and the divergence operator behaves quite differently from a vector dot product.
 
Your mixture of products is wrong. Either use
##\vec{a} \times (\vec{b}\times\vec{c})=(\vec{a}\cdot\vec{c})\cdot\vec{b}-(\vec{a}\cdot\vec{b})\cdot\vec{c}\;## (Graßmann-identity) or
##\vec{a}\times(\vec{b}\times\vec{c})+\vec{b}\times(\vec{c}\times\vec{a})+\vec{c}\times(\vec{a}\times\vec{b})=0 \;## (Jacobi-identity).
 
exact, it's not the same operation and then we cannot speak of associativity. ∇ is itself an operator noted as 3 derivators components. See its definition, its components are not numbers
 
Derivative operators satisfy the Leibniz rule.
 
robphy said:
Derivative operators satisfy the Leibniz rule.
... which is closely related to the Jacobi-identity or likewise the definition of a derivation.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 67 ·
3
Replies
67
Views
5K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
4K
  • · Replies 38 ·
2
Replies
38
Views
6K