Understanding Vector Theory Proofs: Solutions to Common Questions

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the intricacies of vector theory proofs, specifically addressing common questions related to the proof of a proposition found on page 15 of the referenced notes. Key points include the clarification that \nu(0) equals p, not 0, as derived from the substitution of \lambda(0) and \kappa(0) into the equation. Additionally, the linearity of derivatives is emphasized in the transition from the derivative of a sum to individual components. The participants seek further clarification on equations 27 and 29, as well as the derivation of the formula for Z_p(f).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of vector calculus and differential equations
  • Familiarity with the concepts of derivatives and their properties
  • Knowledge of the notation and definitions used in vector theory
  • Experience with mathematical proofs and logical reasoning
NEXT STEPS
  • Review the derivation of the formula for Z_p(f) in vector theory
  • Study the properties of derivatives in the context of vector functions
  • Examine the implications of linearity in differentiation
  • Explore the relationship between \phi and x^\mu in vector transformations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, researchers in theoretical physics, and anyone studying advanced vector calculus and its applications in proofs.

latentcorpse
Messages
1,411
Reaction score
0
In the notes attached here:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3042019#post3042019
(apparently I can't attach the same thing in multiple threads?)
I have quite a few problems with one of the proofs. In the proof of the proposition on p15,

a) he says to note that \nu(0)=0. why is this?

b) he goes from
\{ \frac{d}{dt} [ \alpha ( x^\mu ( \lambda(t)) - x^\mu(p)) + \beta (x^\mu(\kapa(t))-x^\mu(p)) + x^\mu(p)] \}_{t=0} = [ \alpha ( \frac{d x^\mu ( \lambda (t))}{dt})_{t=0} + \beta ( \frac{dx^\mu ( \kappa ( t))}{dt} )_{t=0}]
I really don't understand how these two lines are equal at all!
And also how can we change the \phi's to x^\mu's in going from eqn 25 to the defn of Z_p(f)?

c) where does eqn 27 come from? isn't ( \frac{\partial}{\partial x^\mu})_p (f) = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x^\mu})_p
is it something like if we compose the numerator with \phi^{-1} then we have to cancel that out by composing the p with \phi to give the \phi(p)? I don't really get why this is allowed though?

d)Where does eqn 29 come from?

Thanks a lot for any help. I really need to get my head round all this vector business over the holidays!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
For a, \lambda(0)=\kappa(0)=p, so once you plug those in you get
\nu(0)=\phi^{-1}(\alpha(\phi(p)-\phi(p)) + \beta(\phi(p)-\phi(p) +\phi(p)) = \phi^{-1}(\phi(p)) = p (not 0 like you say in your post)

For (b), just distribute the derivative linearly. Then \frac{d x^{\mu}(p)}{dt} = 0 because p is just a fixed point, so that's just the derivative of a number
 
Office_Shredder said:
For a, \lambda(0)=\kappa(0)=p, so once you plug those in you get
\nu(0)=\phi^{-1}(\alpha(\phi(p)-\phi(p)) + \beta(\phi(p)-\phi(p) +\phi(p)) = \phi^{-1}(\phi(p)) = p (not 0 like you say in your post)

For (b), just distribute the derivative linearly. Then \frac{d x^{\mu}(p)}{dt} = 0 because p is just a fixed point, so that's just the derivative of a number

hi there. thanks for your answers.

do you have any ideas for c) or d) or also, how we get the formula for Z-p(f) in the first place?

thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K