Proving Vector Calculus Identity Without Introducing Coordinates

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the vector calculus identity \( u \times (\nabla \times u) = \nabla(u^2 /2) - (u \cdot \nabla)u \) without resorting to coordinate systems. Participants explore various mathematical approaches and concepts related to vector calculus.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using the Vector Triple Product to approach the proof.
  • Others express concern that the Vector Triple Product does not yield the necessary factor of \(1/2\) in the first term of the identity.
  • One participant points out that \( u^2 \) does not conventionally make sense for a vector and proposes using the expression \( \nabla (u \cdot u) \) instead.
  • Another participant argues that the vector triple product cannot be used because \( \nabla \) is not a vector, but suggests that the proof method is similar to that of the triple product.
  • Discussion includes the potential use of the Levi-Civita symbol \( \epsilon_{ijk} \) as a means to prove the identity, though some express reluctance to write out components.
  • One participant notes the difficulty of proving the identity without coordinates, mentioning the need for a coordinate-free definition of curl and the complexities involved.
  • Concerns are raised about the challenges of extending concepts like curl and cross product beyond three dimensions, as well as the structural dependencies of the identity on the metric and orientation of the space.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the methods to prove the identity, with no consensus on a single approach. Some agree on the challenges of avoiding coordinate systems, while others propose various mathematical tools and concepts.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the definitions and interpretations of vector operations, particularly in the context of higher dimensions and the specific structures required for the identity.

plasmoid
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
Can someone help me prove the identity

[tex]\ u \times (\nabla \times u) = \nabla(u^2 /2) - (u.\nabla)u[/tex]


without having to write it out in components?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
plasmoid said:
Can someone help me prove the identity

[tex]\ u \times (\nabla \times u) = \nabla(u^2 /2) - (u.\nabla)u[/tex]


without having to write it out in components?

Have you considered using the Vector Triple Product?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triple_product
 
plasmoid said:
Yes I have, but that doesn't give me the 1/2 in the first term ...

So the first term is given by del (u . u) Where . is the dot product.

Now u . u = |u|^2.

Also you have to realize that u^2 doesn't make sense if u is a vector (at least in the traditional sense). Using the result above which is valid for any inner product, you will get

del (u . u) = |u|^2 (del) where |u| is the norm of u.

Maybe you should check the syntax again, based on the arguments I've presented above.
 
You can't really use the vector triple product since del isn't actually a vector. Your identity is related to it though, and with care will give you the right answer, since the method of proof for your identity is essentially identical to the proof of the triple product.

Do you know about the Levi-Civita or completely antisymmetric symbol [itex]\epsilon_{ijk}[/itex]? Using this is the easiest way to prove this sort of identity.
 
chiro said:
So the first term is given by del (u . u) Where . is the dot product.

Now u . u = |u|^2.

Also you have to realize that u^2 doesn't make sense if u is a vector (at least in the traditional sense). Using the result above which is valid for any inner product, you will get

del (u . u) = |u|^2 (del) where |u| is the norm of u.

Maybe you should check the syntax again, based on the arguments I've presented above.

How is del (u . u) = |u|^2 (del) ?
 
henry_m said:
You can't really use the vector triple product since del isn't actually a vector. Your identity is related to it though, and with care will give you the right answer, since the method of proof for your identity is essentially identical to the proof of the triple product.

Do you know about the Levi-Civita or completely antisymmetric symbol [itex]\epsilon_{ijk}[/itex]? Using this is the easiest way to prove this sort of identity.

Yes, but using the Levi-Civita symbol will essentially mean writing out the components, and I was trying to prove it without doing that...
 
plasmoid said:
Yes, but using the Levi-Civita symbol will essentially mean writing out the components, and I was trying to prove it without doing that...

Yes, fair point. I took your aim to be avoiding having to laboriously write out every single term in full.

Certainly a nice goal to try to prove this without ever introducing coordinates, but I suspect this will be quite hard. To start with, you'll need a coordinate free definition of curl. This is likely to either be very nasty (limits of integrals or that sort of thing) or require a lot of machinery, drawing from the language of differential forms. Even then it's a bit of a mess. This is partly because the curl and the vector cross product are very special objects particular to 3D, with no natural extension to other dimensions, and partly because the objects in the identity use a lot of the structure of the space (it uses the metric and the orientation, used for Hodge dual, covariant derivative, and musical isomorphism if you like some jargon).

I'd be very interested if anyone has an idea for a cunning strategy!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K