Understanding the Reciprocal Form of Sin and Cos in Polar Coordinates

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving an equation related to the reciprocal forms of sine and cosine in the context of polar coordinates, transitioning from Cartesian coordinates. Participants are exploring the relationships between unit vectors and coordinate transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Problem interpretation, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the need to convert expressions involving Cartesian unit vectors to their polar counterparts. Questions arise regarding the correctness of certain derivatives and the application of the product rule in differentiation.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants offering guidance on necessary substitutions and transformations. There is acknowledgment of potential errors in the original attempts, and suggestions for correcting these mistakes have been made, though no consensus has been reached on the final outcome.

Contextual Notes

Some participants express uncertainty about specific derivatives and the implications of switching coordinate systems. There is mention of a factor discrepancy in the results, indicating that further clarification may be needed.

athrun200
Messages
275
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Prove this equation
attachment.php?attachmentid=37039&stc=1&d=1310225650.jpg


Homework Equations


attachment.php?attachmentid=37040&stc=1&d=1310225650.jpg



The Attempt at a Solution


I almost get the answer. But I don't know why all of the sin and cos are in reciprocal form.


attachment.php?attachmentid=37041&stc=1&d=1310225650.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    6.1 KB · Views: 575
  • 2.jpg
    2.jpg
    12.4 KB · Views: 615
  • 3.jpg
    3.jpg
    27.3 KB · Views: 618
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi athrun200! :smile:

You seem to understand how to do multivariate calculus.
I didn't check all your equations, but they seem right.

However, you end up in an expression with i and j, when you should be ending up in an expression with [itex]\boldsymbol{e_{r}}[/itex] and [itex]\boldsymbol{e_{\theta}}[/itex].

Perhaps you should make a substitution like that?
 
I like Serena said:
However, you end up in an expression with i and j, when you should be ending up in an expression with [itex]\boldsymbol{e_{r}}[/itex] and [itex]\boldsymbol{e_{\theta}}[/itex].

Perhaps you should make a substitution like that?
In fact, the first term on my last step is very similar to [itex]\boldsymbol{e_{r}}[/itex] and same for the second term. Can I really convert them to [itex]\boldsymbol{e_{\theta}}[/itex] by substitution ?

Sorry that I can't think of any substitution which is useful.
 
You're making a transition from cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates.

In your relevant equations section you have defined the relation between the unit vectors of the two sets of coordinates.
What you need is the inverse relation.

And in your attempt you switch the coordinates from cartesian to polar, which is good, but you also need to switch the unit vectors from cartesian to polar.Edit: I just checked a little bit of your equations, and I do not understand how you got [itex]\frac {\partial r} {\partial x} = \frac 1 {\cos \theta}[/itex].
That looks wrong.
 
attachment.php?attachmentid=37055&stc=1&d=1310256726.jpg


Do you mean this?
But the final result still have a factor 2.
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    14 KB · Views: 562
I like Serena said:
You're making a transition from cartesian coordinates to polar coordinates.

In your relevant equations section you have defined the relation between the unit vectors of the two sets of coordinates.
What you need is the inverse relation.

And in your attempt you switch the coordinates from cartesian to polar, which is good, but you also need to switch the unit vectors from cartesian to polar.


Edit: I just checked a little bit of your equations, and I do not understand how you got [itex]\frac {\partial r} {\partial x} = \frac 1 {\cos \theta}[/itex].
That looks wrong.


I obtain it like this. (I am also not sure about it.)
attachment.php?attachmentid=37056&stc=1&d=1310257777.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 1.jpg
    1.jpg
    22.7 KB · Views: 559
Ah well, that is not right.
If you take the partial derivative on the right side, you need to apply the product rule, meaning you also have to differentiate theta.
If you do that, you'll not find it so easy to calculate dr/dx.

Instead I suggest you fill in [itex]r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}[/itex], take the derivative, and simplify any way you like afterward.
You'll get a different result for [itex]\frac {\partial r} {\partial x}[/itex] then, which is also why your end result is off by a factor 2.
If you correct this and the similar mistakes, you'll find the proper end result.
 
Last edited:
I like Serena said:
Ah well, that is not right.
If you take the partial derivative on the right side, you need to apply the product rule, meaning you also have the differentiate theta.
If you do that, you'll not find it so easy to calculate dr/dx.

Instead I suggest you fill in [itex]r = \sqrt{x^2+y^2}[/itex], take the derivative, and simplify any way you like afterward.
You'll get a different result for [itex]\frac {\partial r} {\partial x}[/itex] then, which is also why you're end result is off by a factor 2.
If you correct this and the similar mistakes, you'll find the proper end result.
I get the answer! Thx!
 
Good! And thanks for your thx. :smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K