You are Here: Home

Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field Tweet

Maths and statistics discussion, revision, exam and homework help.

Announcements Posted on
IMPORTANT: You must wait until midnight (morning exams)/4.30AM (afternoon exams) to discuss Edexcel exams and until 1pm/6pm the following day for STEP and IB exams. Please read before posting, including for rules for practical and oral exams. 28-04-2013
1. Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field

I don't understand what I need to do to answer this question, because to me it looks like the proof is just stating the product rule - but for five marks that obviously isn't enough!

Can anyone explain what I should do?
2. Re: Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field
What, exactly, is the definition of this "product rule" you wish to use?

[Either you're saying it's "sort of like the product rule, but they are actually different", or the product rule you wish to use is exactly what you need here, in which case you need to prove it].
3. Re: Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field
(Original post by DFranklin)
What, exactly, is the definition of this "product rule" you wish to use?

[Either you're saying it's "sort of like the product rule, but they are actually different", or the product rule you wish to use is exactly what you need here, in which case you need to prove it].
Oh, uh, I meant that the product rule is exactly what I think I need. So I'm right in thinking that, but need to prove that it applies here? I don't think I can prove that though.
4. Re: Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field
I might have a proof, but I'm not sure if it's valid. I tried writing Phi as an unknown function or x, y and z, and u as a column vector of 3 more unknown 3D functions. Then I expanded Div[(Phi)(u)] using the product rule on each term - so I had a new column vector with two terms in each direction. Is that allowed, since each entry was a function, but not a vector?

Then I rearranged things to show that the result was equivalent to the proof desired, the result being applicable to n-dimensional space since since the operations involved were all independent of number of dimensions.

Does that work? It feels like I'm assuming things I shouldn't.

In any case, just to check, the later formula in the question, is correctly interpreted as stating that the rate of change of fluid density in a given volume is equal to the rate of flow of fluid in or out of the volume, no?
Last edited by 99wattr89; 06-07-2012 at 15:09.
5. Re: Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field
(Original post by 99wattr89)
I might have a proof, but I'm not sure if it's valid. I tried writing Phi as an unknown function or x, y and z, and u as a column vector of 3 more unknown 3D functions. Then I expanded Div[(Phi)(u)] using the product rule on each term - so I had a new column vector with two terms in each direction. Is that allowed, since each entry was a function, but not a vector?

Then I rearranged things to show that the result was equivalent to the proof desired, the result being applicable to n-dimensional space since since the operations involved were all independent of number of dimensions.

Does that work? It feels like I'm assuming things I shouldn't.

In any case, just to check, the later formula in the question, is correctly interpreted as stating that the rate of change of fluid density in a given volume is equal to the rate of flow of fluid in or out of the volume, no?
Why do you have a column vector after you have "worked out" the Div. The Divergence is a scalar.

This is easiest to do with summation convention. Have you seen this before.

Then the first part would be

div(u)
6. Re: Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field
(Original post by thebadgeroverlord)
Why do you have a column vector after you have "worked out" the Div. The Divergence is a scalar.

This is easiest to do with summation convention. Have you seen this before.

Then the first part would be

div(u)
Because I am a very silly person and I put the terms in a column instead of summing. xD

Also, I do know that notation, and I see exactly how the general proof should go now, thank you!