Simple differentiation mistake?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on a potential differentiation error in the equation v = (m/r)sin(theta), suggesting it should be (-m/r)sin(theta) due to a negative factor from the derivative of ∂Ψ/dx. The participants analyze the implications of setting v=0, leading to sin(theta) = 0 and thus cos(theta) = ±1, which affects the expression for u. They clarify that when substituting x = r cos(theta), the equation simplifies correctly to u = Uinfinity + (m/x), negating the need for a negative sign. The conversation highlights the importance of careful differentiation in trigonometric contexts.
influx
Messages
162
Reaction score
1
edcacf.png


The working out states that v = (m/r)sin(theta) but surely this should be (-m/r)sin(theta) ? I mean there is a negative in front of the ∂Ψ/dx ?

Also, if v=0 then 0 = (m/r)sin(theta), therefore sin(theta) = 0? And from this we know cos(theta) = 1 or -1 which would mean u = Uinfinity + (m/r) or Uinfinity - (m/r) as opposed to u = Uinfinity + (m/x) as they got?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
influx said:
The working out states that v = (m/r)sin(theta) but surely this should be (-m/r)sin(theta) ? I mean there is a negative in front of the ∂Ψ/dx ?
When you take the derivative of ##\arctan (y/x)## with respect to ##x##, you also get a ##-1## factor as ##x## is in the denominator. That cancels the first minus sign.

influx said:
Also, if v=0 then 0 = (m/r)sin(theta), therefore sin(theta) = 0? And from this we know cos(theta) = 1 or -1 which would mean u = Uinfinity + (m/r) or Uinfinity - (m/r) as opposed to u = Uinfinity + (m/x) as they got?
##x=r\cos \theta##, so ##u=U_\infty +\frac{m}{r}\cos \theta## becomes ##u=U_\infty+\frac{m}{x}## (the ##\cos \theta## cancels out, so it doesn't matter if it is +1 or -1).
 
Last edited:
influx said:
edcacf.png


The working out states that v = (m/r)sin(theta) but surely this should be (-m/r)sin(theta) ? I mean there is a negative in front of the ∂Ψ/dx ?

Also, if v=0 then 0 = (m/r)sin(theta), therefore sin(theta) = 0? And from this we know cos(theta) = 1 or -1 which would mean u = Uinfinity + (m/r) or Uinfinity - (m/r) as opposed to u = Uinfinity + (m/x) as they got?
I think it has to do with the way the arctan is used here. There are two arguments, x and y, instead of one. There is a special rule for the derivative of tan-1(y/x), as shown in this article:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Differentiation_rules#Derivatives_of_trigonometric_functions
 
Samy_A said:
##x=r\cos \theta##, so ##u=U_\infty +\frac{m}{r}\cos \theta## becomes ##u=U_\infty+\frac{m}{x}## (the ##\cos \theta## cancels out, so it doesn't matter if it is +1 or -1).
Oops, the stated reason is wrong.

Actually, ##u=U_\infty +\frac{m}{r}\cos \theta=U_\infty +\frac{m}{x}\cos² \theta##, and as ##\cos \theta =\pm 1##, we get ##u=U_\infty+\frac{m}{x}##.

Sorry for the mistake.
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top