Why Set Lambda to 1 in Euler's Homogeneous Function Theorem Proof?

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the reasoning behind setting lambda to 1 in the proof of Euler's homogeneous function theorem. The theorem states that for a differentiable function f(\vec x) that is homogeneous of degree k, the relationship kf(\vec x) = \vec x \cdot \nabla f(\alpha \vec x) holds. Participants clarify that while any scaling factor can be used, setting lambda to 1 simplifies the proof without loss of generality, as the limit process in derivatives inherently approaches this value. This approach is particularly relevant in thermodynamics, where functions are often homogeneous of degree 1.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Euler's homogeneous function theorem
  • Familiarity with gradient notation and vector calculus
  • Basic knowledge of thermodynamics and extensive vs. intensive variables
  • Concept of limits in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the implications of Euler's homogeneous function theorem in thermodynamics
  • Learn about the properties of homogeneous functions and their applications
  • Explore the concept of limits in calculus, particularly in relation to derivatives
  • Investigate the role of scaling factors in mathematical proofs
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, physics, and engineering, particularly those focusing on thermodynamics and mathematical proofs involving homogeneous functions.

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."
 
Physics news on Phys.org


Oh, gee, sorry.

I kind of switched greek letters on you.

Wherever you see \alpha in the first post, change it to \lambda.
 


That should be (without alpha)
k f=x.grad(f)
"Why is this a proof of a general theorem, and not a proof for a singular case where ."
You can use any scale you like, but it will make no difference in the end.
a=1 arises because in a derivative we consider
[f(x)-f(y)]/(x-y) with x close to y
a x is close to x when a is close to 1

x.grad(f)=lim_{a->1} [f(a x)-f(x)]/(a-1)
if f is homogeneous we have
lim_{a->0}[f(a x)-f(x)]/(a-1)=[lim_{a->1}(a^k-1^k)/(a-1)] f(x)=k f(x)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K