What does this proof mean? (variation of high-order derivative)

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter thaiqi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Derivative Mean Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the concept of variation in the context of high-order derivatives and calculus of variations. Participants are exploring the meaning and implications of the notation and definitions used in a mathematical proof related to variations of functions.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the origin of ##F_0## in the expression for variation of high-order derivatives, seeking clarification on its role.
  • Another participant suggests that ##F_0## represents the starting point of the variation, prompting further inquiry into its meaning.
  • A comparison is made to definite integrals, where the limits of integration are likened to the concept of a starting point in variations.
  • Concerns are raised about the validity of the expression ##F^{(n)} - F_0^{(n)} = \delta(F^{(n)})##, with one participant questioning whether this holds true.
  • One participant asserts that the change described is a definition of variation, emphasizing the relationship between ##F^{(n)}## and ##F_0^{(n)}##.
  • Another participant introduces the idea that analysis is local, suggesting that ##F^{(n)}## can be viewed as a small deviation from ##F_0^{(n)}##.
  • A question is posed regarding the movement of functions ##\delta y## and ##\delta y^\prime## into the integral, challenging the validity of a step in the proof presented in the book.
  • One participant provides a definition of ##\delta## as a sign of variation, relating it to a specific form involving ##\epsilon \eta (x)##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the interpretation of ##F_0## and the validity of certain mathematical expressions. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple competing interpretations and questions about the definitions and implications of the concepts involved.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the assumptions made about the definitions of variation and the specific conditions under which the mathematical expressions hold. The discussion highlights the need for clarity regarding the roles of different variables and the nature of the functions involved.

thaiqi
Messages
162
Reaction score
9
TL;DR
A question in calculus of variation.
I read in one book proving one nature of variation(variation of high-order derivative).
It writes that "##\delta(F^{(n)}) = F^{(n)} - F_0^{(n)} = (F - F_0)^{(n)} = (\delta F)^{(n)}##".
But I don't understand where this ##F_0## comes out from.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Isn't ##F_0## the starting point of the variation?
 
jedishrfu said:
Isn't ##F_0## the starting point of the variation?
Sorry I don't catch you well. Do you mean it is the "starting point"? What would it then mean?
 
When one integrates a function, you might go from x=a to x=b

##\int_a^b f(x)dx = F(x)|_a^b = F(b) - F(a)##

and so it looks like x=a is the ##x_0## and ##F(a) = F_0##
 
thaiqi said:
Summary:: A question in calculus of variation.

I read in one book proving one nature of variation(variation of high-order derivative).
It writes that "##\delta(F^{(n)}) = F^{(n)} - F_0^{(n)} = (F - F_0)^{(n)} = (\delta F)^{(n)}##".
But I don't understand where this ##F_0## comes out from.
The right part is understandable. But the left part: ##F^{(n)} - F_0^{(n)} = \delta(F^{(n)})##, does it hold?
 
Isn't that just the definition of a variation?

The key part is the change to ##F^{(n)} - F_0^{(n)} = (F - F_0)^{(n)}##

Jedi calling @fresh_42 --> Come in @fresh_42
 
Analysis is a local theory. All statements are about a certain local point. In this case we have ##F_0^{(n)}## as point of interest. ##F^{(n)}## is ##F_0^{(n)}## plus a little bit off. This little bit is ##\delta(F^{(n)})##.
 
Another place in this book it writes:
"
## \delta(\int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx) = {\partial \over \partial y}(\int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx)\delta y + {\partial \over \partial y^\prime}(\int_{x_0}^{x_1}Fdx)\delta y^\prime ##
## = (\int_{x_0}^{x_1}F_y dx)\delta y + (\int_{x_0}^{x_1}F_{y^\prime}dx)\delta y^\prime ##
## = \int_{x_0}^{x_1}(F_y \delta y + F_{y^\prime}\delta y^\prime) dx ##
## = \int_{x_0}^{x_1} \delta F dx ##
"
My question is: how does the third equal sign hold? Aren't ##\delta y## and ##\delta y^\prime## functions of ## x ##, how can they be moved into the integral?
 
To complement, it writes this in front of the above place:

## \delta F = F_y \delta y + F_y^{\prime} \delta y^{\prime}##
 
  • #10
Thaiqi: How is your ##\delta## defined?
 
  • #11
WWGD said:
Thaiqi: How is your ##\delta## defined?
##\delta ## is the sign of variation. ##\delta y = y(x) - y_0(x) = \epsilon \eta (x)##
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K