Results are out! Find what you need...fast. Get quick advice or join the chat
Hey there Sign in to join this conversationNew here? Join for free

Prove the differential of a scalar multiple of a vector field

Announcements Posted on
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:


    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?
    • 14 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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].
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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.
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    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?
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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(\psiu) =  \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(\psi u_i)
    • Thread Starter
    • 0 followers
    Offline

    ReputationRep:
    (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(\psiu) =  \frac{\partial}{\partial x_i}(\psi u_i)
    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!

Reply

Submit reply

Register

Thanks for posting! You just need to create an account in order to submit the post
  1. this can't be left blank
    that username has been taken, please choose another Forgotten your password?
  2. this can't be left blank
    this email is already registered. Forgotten your password?
  3. this can't be left blank

    6 characters or longer with both numbers and letters is safer

  4. this can't be left empty
    your full birthday is required
  1. By joining you agree to our Ts and Cs, privacy policy and site rules

  2. Slide to join now Processing…

Updated: July 6, 2012
New on TSR

Strictly iPlayer

Will you still watch if some BBC programmes go online only?

Article updates
Reputation gems:
You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.