Vector & Gradient: Proving \phi=rk/r^{3}

  • Thread starter Thread starter gtfitzpatrick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Gradient Vector
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the gradient of the function \(\phi = \frac{rk}{r^3}\), where \(r = xi + yj + zk\) and \(r\) is the magnitude of the vector \(r\). Participants are working through the differentiation process and exploring the application of the quotient rule in this context.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss differentiating the function with respect to \(x\), \(y\), and \(z\), and express uncertainty about their results. There are inquiries about the correctness of their differentiation and the application of the quotient rule. Some participants suggest that the original poster may be missing parts of their calculations.

Discussion Status

The discussion is active, with participants providing feedback and suggesting the use of the quotient rule for gradients. There is recognition of potential gaps in understanding, particularly regarding the differentiation of the components of the function. One participant indicates they have resolved their confusion after receiving guidance.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention issues with clarity in the presentation of mathematical expressions, which may affect understanding. There is also a reference to the original function being expressed in terms of \(z\) and \(r^3\), indicating a focus on the relationship between these variables.

gtfitzpatrick
Messages
372
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement




if [tex]\phi[/tex] = rk/r[tex]^{3}[/tex] where r=xi + yJ + zk and r is the magnitude of r, prove that [tex]\nabla[/tex][tex]\phi[/tex] = (1/r[tex]^{}5[/tex])(r[tex]^{}2[/tex]k-3(r.k)r

so i differenciated wrt x then y then z and tried to tidy it all up but i got1/rClick to see the LaTeX code for this image(-3(r.k)r)

When i differenciated wrt x i got -3x/rClick to see the LaTeX code for this image and similar for y and z was this right?

then i just put these answers into Click to see the LaTeX code for this image = dx/dClick to see the LaTeX code for this image i + dy/dClick to see the LaTeX code for this image j + dz/dClick to see the LaTeX code for this image k

which gives
-3xz/rClick to see the LaTeX code for this image i - 3yz/rClick to see the LaTeX code for this image j - 3zz/rClick to see the LaTeX code for this image k

am i right so far? it just seemed to tidy up to 1/rClick to see the LaTeX code for this image(-3(r.k)r)

when it should be 1/rClick to see the LaTeX code for this image(rClick to see the LaTeX code for this imagek-3(r.k)r)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi gtfitzpatrick! :smile:

This is too difficult to read … everything has "Click to see the LaTeX code for this image" in the middle. :confused:

Can you type it out again, perhaps using ² and ³ and ^4 and ^5? :smile:
 
if [tex]\phi[/tex] = rk/r[tex]^{3}[/tex] where r=xi + yJ + zk and r is the magnitude of r, prove that [tex]\nabla[/tex][tex]\phi[/tex] = (1/r[tex]^{}5[/tex])(r[tex]^{}2[/tex]k-3(r.k)r

so i differenciated wrt x then y then z and tried to tidy it all up but i got 1/r[tex]^{5}[/tex](-3(r.k)r)
 
When i differenciated wrt x i got -3x/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] and similar for y and z was this right?

then i just put these answers into = dx/d[tex]\phi[/tex] i + dy/d[tex]\phi[/tex] j + dz/d[tex]\phi[/tex] k

which gives
-3xz/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] i - 3yz/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] j - 3zz/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] k
 
am i right so far? it just seemed to tidy up to 1/r[tex]^{5}[/tex](-3(r.k)r)

when it should be 1/r[tex]^{5}[/tex](r[tex]^{2}[/tex]k-3(r.k)r)
 
gtfitzpatrick said:
am i right so far? it just seemed to tidy up to 1/r[tex]^{5}[/tex](-3(r.k)r)

when it should be 1/r[tex]^{5}[/tex](r[tex]^{2}[/tex]k-3(r.k)r)

It's not terribly clear what you are doing, but some how you are winding up with only one part of a quotient rule answer. Your initial function is (r.k)/r^3. That's the same thing as z/r^3.
 
You know there is a 'quotient rule' for grad, yes? grad(f/g)=(g*grad(f)-f*grad(g))/g^2. Does that help?
 
gtfitzpatrick said:
When i differenciated wrt x i got -3x/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] and similar for y and z was this right?

then i just put these answers into = dx/d[tex]\phi[/tex] i + dy/d[tex]\phi[/tex] j + dz/d[tex]\phi[/tex] k

which gives
-3xz/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] i - 3yz/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] j - 3zz/r[tex]^{5}[/tex] k

Hi gtfitzpatrick! :smile:

You're only differentiating the 1/r^5.

You need to differentiate the r also. :smile:
 
i differenciated z(x^2+y^2+z^2)[tex]^{-3/2}[/tex] wrt x then y then z, and then filled it into the fomula was this not right?

"you know there is a 'quotient rule' for grad, yes? grad(f/g)=(g*grad(f)-f*grad(g))/g^2"

I didn't know this, does this mean I'm wrong?i haven't seen this formula before what are the f and g's?
 
Last edited:
  • #10
so i can't use the product rule?
 
  • #11
gtfitzpatrick said:
i differenciated z(x^2+y^2+z^2)[tex]^{-3/2}[/tex] wrt x then y then z, and then filled it into the fomula was this not right?

"you know there is a 'quotient rule' for grad, yes? grad(f/g)=(g*grad(f)-f*grad(g))/g^2"

I didn't know this, does this mean I'm wrong?i haven't seen this formula before what are the f and g's?

It means you are missing a piece of the grad of z/r^3. In terms of the quotient rule, f is z and r^3 is g. You are missing the grad(f) part. Yes, you could also use the product rule, grad(z*r^(-3))=grad(z)*r^(-3)+z*grad(r^(-3)). You are missing the grad(z)*r^(-3) part.
 
  • #12
thanks for getting back to me, i figured it out i was missing it,god it took me a age to get there Thanks again though
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
8K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K