MHB Proving vector calculus identities w/ tensor notation

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the vector calculus identity $$\vec{\nabla}(fg)=f\vec{\nabla}{g}+g\vec{\nabla}{f}$$ using vector notation. The initial approach involved expressing the left side as $\nabla_j(fg)$, but the user struggled to progress from there. A suggestion was made to apply the product rule to the x-component of the expression, leading to a clearer path for proof. The notation was then transformed into a more readable form, demonstrating how the identity holds true by breaking down the components. The final conclusion confirms that the identity is valid when applying the product rule correctly.
skate_nerd
Messages
174
Reaction score
0
I have an vector calculus identity to prove and I need to use vector notation to do it. The identity is $$\vec{\nabla}(fg)=f\vec{\nabla}{g}+g\vec{\nabla}{f}$$ I tried starting with the left side by writing $\vec{\nabla}(fg)=\nabla_j(fg)$. Now I look and that and it really looks like there is nowhere I can go from there. Is there something I am unaware of that you can do with those scalar functions \(f\) and \(g\)? Or would it be a better idea to start this proof with the right side of the identity?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
skatenerd said:
I have an vector calculus identity to prove and I need to use vector notation to do it. The identity is $$\vec{\nabla}(fg)=f\vec{\nabla}{g}+g\vec{\nabla}{f}$$ I tried starting with the left side by writing $\vec{\nabla}(fg)=\nabla_j(fg)$. Now I look and that and it really looks like there is nowhere I can go from there. Is there something I am unaware of that you can do with those scalar functions \(f\) and \(g\)? Or would it be a better idea to start this proof with the right side of the identity?

Hi skatenerd! :)

Let's take a look at the first component which is the x component.
$$\nabla_1(fg) = \frac{\partial}{\partial x}(f \cdot g)$$
Can you apply the product rule to that?Btw, I have moved your thread to the sub forum Calculus, which covers this topic.
 
I guess I was expecting it to be more complicated than that...haha thank you
 
I am fond of the "big D" notation, which seems easier to read to me.

In this notation, we have:

$\nabla(fg) = (D_1(fg),D_2(fg),D_3(fg))$

$= (fD_1g + gD_1f,fD_2g + gD_2f,fD_3g + gD_3f)$

$= (fD_1g,fD_2g,fD_3g) + (gD_1f,gD_2f,gD_3f)$

$=f(D_1g,D_2g,D_3g) + g(D_1f,D_2f,D_3f) = f\nabla g + g\nabla f$
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K