Where Can I Find Proofs for Vector Calculus Identities?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the search for proofs of vector calculus identities, particularly focusing on the product rules and derivations of various identities. Participants explore different methods of proving these identities, including Cartesian coordinates and alternative approaches involving tensors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant references Wikipedia as a source for vector identities and seeks links to proofs, emphasizing interest in the derivation of product rules.
  • Another participant suggests a new teaching strategy for deriving vector identities using skew-symmetric tensors and dyadic products, arguing against the reliance on Cartesian components.
  • Some participants defend the use of Cartesian coordinates for proving identities, asserting that if an identity holds in one coordinate system, it holds in all systems.
  • One participant argues that proving identities in Cartesian coordinates is inefficient and less intuitive, advocating for higher-level algebra tools for simplification.
  • A later reply challenges the Cartesian proof approach, suggesting that it can lead to messy and inelegant derivations, and calls for a proof of a specific identity using Cartesian coordinates.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the appropriateness of using Cartesian coordinates for proofs. While some support this method, others argue for alternative approaches, indicating a lack of consensus on the best strategy for proving vector calculus identities.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of various methods, including the potential complexity of Cartesian proofs and the need for clear definitions when discussing vector identities.

Physics news on Phys.org
I found a link that might be helpful:

Vector algebra is a powerful and needful tool for Physics but unfortunately, due to lack of mathematical skills, it becomes misleading for first undergraduate courses of science and engineering studies. Standard vector identities are usually proved using Cartesian components or geometrical arguments, accordingly. Instead, this work presents a new teaching strategy in order to derive symbolically vector identities without analytical expansions in components, either explicitly or using indicial notation. This strategy is mainly based on the correspondence between three-dimensional vectors and skew-symmetric second-rank tensors. Hence, the derivations are performed from skew tensors and dyadic products, rather than cross products. Some examples of skew-symmetric tensors in Physics are illustrated.
http://www.citeulike.org/user/pak/article/4524046
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0904/0904.1814v1.pdf
 
I don't think there is anything wrong with proving these identities in cartesian coordinates. If you have an identity such as [tex]\nabla (fg)=f\nabla g+g\nabla f[/tex], this just tells you that one vector is equal to another vector. If this is true in one coordinate system, it is true in all coordinate systems.
 
daudaudaudau said:
I don't think there is anything wrong with proving these identities in cartesian coordinates. If you have an identity such as [tex]\nabla (fg)=f\nabla g+g\nabla f[/tex], this just tells you that one vector is equal to another vector. If this is true in one coordinate system, it is true in all coordinate systems.

If is a lot less efficient and less intuitive to prove vector relationships by resorting to expressing the vectors as individual components. People are much more likely to be able to see simplifications in vector algebra if they have some higher level algebra tools available to them.
 
The identities of vector calculus are easily derived and proven by algebraic mean given a few lemmas. It would be bad to prove them in cartesian coordinates because it would be messy, lengthly, inelegant, and would exagerate the importance of coordinates.
Anyone who disagrees should post a cartesian coordinates proof of
[tex]\mathbf{(a\times\nabla)\times b+a\nabla\cdot b=a\times(\nabla\times b)+(a\cdot\nabla)b}[/tex]
from another thread
lurflurf said:
The trouble is commuting an opperator adds a commutator term
In single variable calculus
D(uv)=uDv+vDu not uDv
we can use partial opperators to avoid this
let an opperant in {} be fixed
D(uv)=D({u}v)+D(u{v})={u}Dv+{v}Du=uDv+vDu

∇(F . G )=∇({F} . G )+∇(F . {G} )
∇({F} . G )=Fx(∇xG)+(F.∇)G
∇(F . {G} )=Gx(∇xF)+(G.∇)F
∇(F . G )=∇({F} . G )+∇(F . {G} )=Fx(∇xG)+(F.∇)G+Gx(∇xF)+(G.∇)F
 

Similar threads

Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K