I Standard designation for generalization of Euler-Lagrange?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the naming conventions for an equation related to the Euler-Lagrange Theorem, with the term "Euler-Poisson Equation" mentioned as a possible designation. There is uncertainty about its recognition among English-speaking mathematicians, as it has historical usage in Russian literature. The conversation also touches on the concept of the "Lagrange Derivative" and its relevance in differential equations, particularly in the context of the Euler-Lagrange equation. Participants seek clarification on the differences between partial and total derivatives in this framework and their implications for solving Lagrangian problems. Overall, the thread highlights the need for standardized terminology in mathematical physics.
nomadreid
Gold Member
Messages
1,748
Reaction score
243
TL;DR Summary
In Wiki's article on the Euler-Lagrange equation , under "Generalizations">'Single function of single variable...', there is an equation (stated in main text). Is there a standard name for it? Some Russian authors call it the Euler-Poisson equation.
In English, does the equation
1641272080870.png

have any standard name besides (generalization of) the Euler-Lagrange Theorem? I have seen the designation "Euler-Poisson Equation" used by the Russian mathematician Lev Elsholtz way back in 1956 repeated in recent Russian webpages, but am not sure whether this would be recognizable (perhaps with a footnote?) by English-speaking mathematicians. (Not to get mixed up with either the Euler-Poisson-Darboux Equation or the Euler-Poisson Integral.)

I was unsure whether to post this in the mathematics or the physics section, as it is strictly speaking mathematics but mainly used in physics. If a moderator wishes to move it, then my thanks in advance to that moderator.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In Schouten's Ricci Calculus (Springer) and his Tensor Analysis for Physicists (Dover),
he refers to the "Lagrange Derivative".

previews from Google Books... search for "lagrange derivative"

From Ricci Calculus,
1642179906915.png

1642179928749.png
From Tensor Analysis for Physicists,
1642180247088.png

1642180287607.png
 
Thanks very much, robphy. (Sorry for the delayed response.)

(You attached the same excerpt twice.)

Unfortunately, when I googled "Lagrange derivative", I came up empty (i.e., nothing under that title, and, google sending me what was closest, everything was about the Euler-Lagrange Equation).

I am working through the text you sent. Given that I am close to nil in differential equations, perhaps you can answer a couple of questions on it. First,
1642344338512.png

1642345096448.png

Wouldn't that make the Script-L a functional?

I am attempting to see whether this text would help me interpret the so-called Euler-Poisson equation in where the partial derivatives such as
1642346559291.png

in the Euler-Lagrange equation are replaced by the "total partial derivative", or "complete partial derivative",
1642346588105.png

which are defined as follows (Elgots, Calculus of Variations)
1642345442946.png

Is the "complete partial derivative" here the same as the "total derivative"?

For which situation(s) is the replacement of partial derivatives by "total partial derivatives" in the Euler-Lagrange equation useful/valid? It appears that when one applies this new equation to a Lagrangian, one is likely to get a different answer than the application of the usual Euler-Lagrange equation, so the circumstances must be different, no?

Sorry if the question is obvious, but my level of "diffy-Q" is rather basic. Thanks for any help.

 
nomadreid said:
Thanks very much, robphy. (Sorry for the delayed response.)

(You attached the same excerpt twice.)

Hmmm... that's odd. I see 4 distinct images, 2 each from the two works (p.111, 112 from Ricci Calculus, p 78-79, 79-80).

with quotes

I've been interested in Schouten's work for a while...
so I recall seeing the "Lagrange derivative"
... and, thus, my response.
Unfortunately, I don't know any more details, except for these terms that may be related to what you seek.
 
I know it as the functional derivative: You define
$$S[q]=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t L(q,\dot{q},\ddot{q},\ldots)$$
as a functional on the space of trajectories ##q(t)## with fixed initial and final point. Then via variation and integration by parts you get
$$\delta S=\int_{t_1}^{t_2} \mathrm{d} t (\partial_q L - \mathrm{d}_t \partial_{\dot{q}} L + \mathrm{d}_t^2 \partial_{\ddot{q}} L+\cdots).$$
This defines the functional derivative as
$$\frac{\delta S}{\delta q(t)} = \partial_q L - \mathrm{d}_t \partial_{\dot{q}} L + \mathrm{d}_t^2 \partial_{\ddot{q}} L+\cdots$$
 
Thanks very much, robphy and vanhees71. Very helpful!
 
Thread 'Question about pressure of a liquid'
I am looking at pressure in liquids and I am testing my idea. The vertical tube is 100m, the contraption is filled with water. The vertical tube is very thin(maybe 1mm^2 cross section). The area of the base is ~100m^2. Will he top half be launched in the air if suddenly it cracked?- assuming its light enough. I want to test my idea that if I had a thin long ruber tube that I lifted up, then the pressure at "red lines" will be high and that the $force = pressure * area$ would be massive...
I feel it should be solvable we just need to find a perfect pattern, and there will be a general pattern since the forces acting are based on a single function, so..... you can't actually say it is unsolvable right? Cause imaging 3 bodies actually existed somwhere in this universe then nature isn't gonna wait till we predict it! And yea I have checked in many places that tiny changes cause large changes so it becomes chaos........ but still I just can't accept that it is impossible to solve...
Back
Top