1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Some questions I am not very sure about

  1. Mar 8, 2006 #1

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I have some questions that I don't really know for sure, and think that it would be great if you guys can help me out.
    In high school, I am taught that:
    [tex]a ^ 0 = 1, \ \forall a \neq 0[/tex], and hence 00 is not defined. However, I've recently read an article in Wikipedia that states a0 = 1, and it's also true for a = 0. So I am a little bit confused here.
    Is 00 defined? What's the international rule?
    ---------------
    The second question is about the chain rule. I did see someone posted something like:
    [tex]\frac{dx}{dy} \frac{dy}{dz} \frac{dz}{dx} = -1[/tex]. However, I am not sure how to arrive at this equality.
    I think it should be:
    [tex]\frac{dx}{dy} \frac{dy}{dz} \frac{dz}{dx} = \frac{dx}{dz} \frac{dz}{dx} = \frac{dx}{dx} = 1[/tex].
    I just wonder if I did make a mistake somewhere? :confused:
    Thanks, :smile:
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 8, 2006 #2

    quasar987

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    I've always tought 0^0 is undefined. I would be surprised if someone said otherwise. There are cases however, where we chose to regard o^0 as 1 in order to simplify the notation. Take a power serie for exemple. We write

    [tex]\sum_{k=0}^{\infty}a_k x^k[/tex]

    But evaluate that that x=0 and your first term is [itex]a_0 0^0[/itex], which is not defined. But by convention, we chose to regard that term as just [itex]a_0[/itex] just to allow this writing. Otherwise, we'd have to always write power series as

    [tex]a_0 + \sum_{k=1}^{\infty}a_k x^k[/tex]

    which would be tiresome.
     
  4. Mar 8, 2006 #3

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes, I see your point of simplifying the notation. Thanks, :)
    By the way, I found it here, section 1.2 Exponents one and zero.
    So in that article, it's just plain wrong, right? The way I see it, the writer is defining 00 to be 1, which is a bit ambiguity, and also it does not seem correct to me...
    Should I correct the article?
     
  5. Mar 8, 2006 #4

    TD

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    I've seen it being defined as 1 before, I wouldn't correct it since there isn't an international consensus about this.
     
  6. Mar 8, 2006 #5

    shmoe

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    It seems like there should be a note about how this isn't universal and it's sometimes just left as undefined. This has been discussed many times here, so search around if you want more.
     
  7. Mar 8, 2006 #6
    Warning: Some people take 0^0=1 as obvious. I once heard an NCU Physics professor chew her grad student out because he didn't "know that."

    Personally, I have found good arguments to call it either 0 or 1 depending on how you want to look at the situation. So I agree: undefined. (Sorry NCU prof! o:) )

    -Dan
     
  8. Mar 8, 2006 #7
    Actually that looks like the cyclical relation or the cyclical rule (from what I remember). It looks like this:

    [tex]\Big(\frac{dx}{dy}\Big)_z\Big(\frac{dy}{dz}\Big)_x\Big(\frac{dz}{dx}\Big)_y=-1[/tex]

    where the subscript means "keep fixed" (the first parenthesis means "derivate x wrt y and keep z fixed" and so on).
     
  9. Mar 9, 2006 #8

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Uhmm, not very sure if I understand it. Can you give me an example?
    Thanks,
     
  10. Mar 9, 2006 #9

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    Sure, consider the equation for the plane,
    [tex]ax+by+cz=d[/tex]
    and assume that a,b,c are non-zero (I'll set d=0 for simplicity.

    Hence, you may if you wish solve for x in terms of y and z:
    [tex]x=-\frac{b}{a}y-\frac{c}{a}z[/tex]
    Or if you'd rather solve for y in terms of x or z:
    [tex]y=-\frac{a}{b}x-\frac{c}{b}z[/tex]
    Or you may solve for z in terms of x and y:
    [tex]z=-\frac{a}{c}x-\frac{b}{c}y[/tex]

    Using the appropriate expression, we may find partial derivatives:
    [tex]\frac{\partial{x}}{\partial{y}}=-\frac{b}{a},\frac{\partial{y}}{\partial{z}}=-\frac{c}{b},\frac{\partial{z}}{\partial{x}}=-\frac{a}{c}[/tex]

    Multiply these together and get the amusing result.
     
  11. Mar 9, 2006 #10
    Good example. The cyclical relation is quite useful in Thermodynamics / Statistical Mechanics with all the relations between the different variables. Here is an example:

    [tex]\Big(\frac{\partial{S}}{\partial{T}}\Big)_{P}\Big(\frac{\partial{P}}{\partial{S}}\Big)_{T}\Big(\frac{\partial{T}}{\partial{P}}\Big)_{S}=-1[/tex]

    where S is the entropy, T the temperature and P the pressure.
     
  12. Mar 9, 2006 #11

    arildno

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    Dearly Missed

    The general case is as follows, let G be a function of n variables, and consider the equation for constant G:
    [tex]G(x_{1},x_{2},.....,x_{n})=K[/tex]
    Assume that we have a solution of this equation called [itex]\hat{x}=(\hat{x}_{1},\hat{x}_{2}...,\hat{x}_{n})[/tex].
    In a neighbourhood of [tex]\hat{x}[/tex], it should be possible to solve for any one of the coordinates as some function of the other coordinates, i.e, there should exist n functions of the type:
    [tex]x_{i}=X_{i}(x_{1},..x_{j},..,x_{n}), j=1,..,n, j\neq{i}[/tex]
    so that we identically have in our region:
    [tex]G(x_{1},..,X_{i}(x_{1},..x_{j},..,x_{n}),....,x_{n})=K[/tex]

    By differentiating these relations, we should in particular have:
    [tex]\frac{\partial{X}_{i}}{\partial{x}_{i+1}}=-\frac{\frac{\partial{G}}{\partial{x}_{i+1}}}{\frac{\partial{G}}{\partial{x}_{i}}},i=1,..n, x_{n+1}\equiv{x}_{1}[/tex]

    Multiplying all these together, you'll get:
    [tex]\prod_{i=1}^{n}\frac{\partial{X}_{i}}{\partial{x}_{i+1}}=(-1)^{n},x_{n+1}\equiv{x}_{1}[/tex]
     
  13. Mar 10, 2006 #12

    VietDao29

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes, thanks for all the replies, guys. It's very clear. Thanks, :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Some questions I am not very sure about
  1. I am very lost (Replies: 2)

Loading...