Why f is no longer a function of x and y ?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Adesh
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the mathematical concept of functions of multiple variables, specifically addressing why a function \( f(x,y) \) can appear to lose its dependency on \( x \) and \( y \) when restricted to a defined rectangular region. Participants clarify that while \( f \) remains a function of \( x \) and \( y \), the derivatives may be zero due to the nature of dummy variables in integration, as illustrated by the Biot-Savart Law and the example of Coulomb's force. The distinction between primed and unprimed variables is emphasized, highlighting that \( J \) is a function of \( x' \) rather than \( x \).

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of multivariable calculus, specifically functions of multiple variables.
  • Familiarity with partial derivatives and their applications.
  • Knowledge of integral calculus, particularly the concept of dummy variables in integration.
  • Basic principles of electromagnetism, including the Biot-Savart Law.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the concept of dummy variables in integration and their implications on differentiation.
  • Explore the applications of partial derivatives in physics, particularly in electromagnetism.
  • Learn about the Biot-Savart Law and its derivation to understand its relevance in vector calculus.
  • Investigate the relationship between different coordinate systems and their impact on function dependencies.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and students of calculus who are looking to deepen their understanding of multivariable functions and their derivatives, particularly in the context of physics applications.

  • #31
PeroK said:
The same difference as differentiating with respect to ##y_1## and ##y_2## in the above examples.
That solves my whole problem. Thank you so much.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #32
Adesh said:
So, what’s the difference between differentiating with respect to ##x## and ##x’## ?
In that response I was trying to illustrate to you the way we think of axes, but:
Define ##\vec a=f(x)\vec e_1=(f(x), 0)## and ##\vec c=g(x')\vec e_1=(g(x'),0)##. You know how to do differentiation on vectors as you are reading Griffith's book, so what do you think?
Adesh said:
That solves my whole problem. Thank you so much.
I think the main point that you need to remember is to think of the axes as the set of real numbers. The function you have of both ##x## and ##x'## who are on the same "axis" can be seen as ##\vec a = f(x, x')\vec e##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: Adesh
  • #33
On #4
\nabla\times J=[\frac{\partial J_y(x',y',z')}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial J_z(x',y',z')}{\partial y}]\hat x + ...
is zero.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: PeroK

Similar threads

  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
871
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K