clustro
As the title suggests, I do not understand why people set lambda = 1 in proofs of Euler's homogeneous function theorem.
Euler's homogeneous function theorem is:
i. Definition of homogeneity.
Given a differentiable function, f(\vec x), that function is said to be "homogeneous of degree k" if:
f(\alpha\vec x) = \alpha^kf(\vec x).
ii. The theorem:
Given f(\vec x), iff it satisfies (i), then:
kf(\vec x) = \vec x \cdot \nabla f(\alpha \vec x)
I am studying this because it is used in thermodynamics. The use there is relatively simple. Any thermodynamics function is homogeneous of degree 1 with respect to its extensive variables; e.g. if I increase the mass by a factor of 2, then my energy has increased by a factor of 2 (keeping the intensive variables constant).
The proof in this pdf is representative of the proofs I found (its on first page): http://tinyurl.com/3ky2ud5
I do not understand why they are arbitrarily setting \lambda = 1. I understand and see that it gives the correct results, but I should be able to scale my variables by any factor of \lambda I want.
I guess my question is really, "Why is this a proof of a general theorem, and not a proof for a singular case where \lambda = 1."
Euler's homogeneous function theorem is:
i. Definition of homogeneity.
Given a differentiable function, f(\vec x), that function is said to be "homogeneous of degree k" if:
f(\alpha\vec x) = \alpha^kf(\vec x).
ii. The theorem:
Given f(\vec x), iff it satisfies (i), then:
kf(\vec x) = \vec x \cdot \nabla f(\alpha \vec x)
I am studying this because it is used in thermodynamics. The use there is relatively simple. Any thermodynamics function is homogeneous of degree 1 with respect to its extensive variables; e.g. if I increase the mass by a factor of 2, then my energy has increased by a factor of 2 (keeping the intensive variables constant).
The proof in this pdf is representative of the proofs I found (its on first page): http://tinyurl.com/3ky2ud5
I do not understand why they are arbitrarily setting \lambda = 1. I understand and see that it gives the correct results, but I should be able to scale my variables by any factor of \lambda I want.
I guess my question is really, "Why is this a proof of a general theorem, and not a proof for a singular case where \lambda = 1."