Vector/Matrix Differentiation: Where to Put the Transpose?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter daviddoria
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Transpose
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the differentiation of vector and matrix functions, specifically focusing on the placement of transposes in expressions involving gradients. Participants explore the implications of vector orientation (row vs. column) and the use of geometric algebra in this context. The scope includes theoretical aspects of vector calculus and practical challenges encountered in differentiation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suggests that the derivative of f(x)^2, where f is a vector, is given by 2*f(x)*del(f(x)), but expresses uncertainty about where to place the transpose.
  • Another participant discusses the geometric algebra perspective, stating that the gradient can be expressed as \nabla f(x)^2 = (\nabla f(x)) f(x) + f(x) \nabla(f(x)), leading to 2 f(x) \cdot \nabla f(x).
  • It is noted that when using coordinate vectors, the transpose can be applied in different ways, such as 2 f(x)^\text{T}\nabla f(x) or 2 ({\nabla{f(x)}})^\text{T} f(x), but the latter requires restrictions on the gradient's operation.
  • A participant reflects on their previous statement, indicating it was incorrect since it yielded a scalar result instead of a vector, and attempts to clarify the expression for the gradient of the squared magnitude of f.
  • Further elaboration includes an expansion of the gradient expression, incorporating divergence, curl, and directional derivatives, while questioning the natural expression of these concepts with matrices.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct placement of transposes and the implications of vector orientation. There is no consensus on a definitive method for handling these expressions, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that assumptions about the basis being orthonormal may affect the use of transposes, and there are unresolved mathematical steps in the expressions provided. The discussion also highlights the complexity of vector differentiation in various contexts.

daviddoria
Messages
96
Reaction score
0
if you want to find the derivative (gradient) of f(x)^2 when f is a vector, you would get

2*f(x)*del(f(x))

I never know where to put the transpose! sometimes its clear because another term in the equation will be a scalar, so you know an inner product is needed, but if you don't have a hint like that, how do you know if you should put the transpose on the f(x) or the del(f(x))? I suppose it depends on if f is a column or row vector, but a lot of times this is not given in the statement of the problem.

Any thoughts on this? Does anyone have a good online tutorial on vector/matrix differentiation?

Thanks!

Dave
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In terms of geometric algebra (since f is a vector grad and the the vector don't commute) one has:

[tex] \nabla f(x)^2 = (\nabla f(x)) f(x) + f(x) \nabla(f(x)) = 2 f(x) \cdot \nabla f(x)[/tex]

(this works for a scalar f too since the dot product will just be scalar multiplication and you get [tex]2 f(x) \nabla f(x)[/tex].

Since you are talking about transposes, I'm assuming you've taken coordinate for your f and grad in some basis, in which case you can do it either way:

[tex] 2 f(x)^\text{T}\nabla f(x)[/tex]

or:
[tex] 2 ({\nabla{f(x)}})^\text{T} f(x)[/tex]

but in the second case you have to restrict the gradient to operating just on the first f(x).
 
ps. I don't know of an online tutorial. I'm learning about this now from two places:

Hestenes's New Foundations for Classical Mechanics.
Doran/Lasenby's Geometric Algebra for Physicists.
 
pps. If you choose to use coordinate vectors, and tranposition I think that basis also has to be orthonormal. Better to express using the dot product directly.
 
It occurred to me that what I initially wrote is wrong (has to be since it was a scalar result when it should be a vector).

Using ticks to mark what the grad is operating on when separated one can write:

[tex] \nabla \lvert f \rvert ^2 = \nabla f^2 = \nabla f f = \acute{\nabla}f\acute{f} + (\nabla f)f[/tex]

(again using the geometric product to multiply the two vectors).

Expanding this I get:

[tex] \nabla \lvert f \rvert ^2 = f (\nabla \cdot f) + (f \cdot \nabla) f - f \cdot (\nabla \wedge f) - (f \wedge \nabla) \cdot f[/tex]

Which in the three dimensional case can be written in terms of the "normal" vector products.

[tex] \nabla \lvert f \rvert ^2 = f (\nabla \cdot f) + (f \cdot \nabla) f + f \times (\nabla \times f) + (f \times \nabla) \times f[/tex]

Here we have a divergence, curl, directional derivative, and a ``normal'' directional derivative term (name?).

In my original post I allowed grad to commute with the vector, which means they are colinear (not generally true). Note that with the correction I don't really see how one would express this naturally with matrixes at all, so I've no idea now to answer your question of the where to put the transpose except for the colinear case.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
5K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 33 ·
2
Replies
33
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K