Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

In looking over a proof on the mean value property for harmonic functions on spheres I came across the following formula: $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial n}=\textbf{n}\cdot \triangledown u=\frac{\bf{x}}{r}\cdot \triangledown u =\frac{x}{r}u_x+\frac{y}{r}u_y+\frac{z}{r}u_z=\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}$$ Where $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$ is the spherical distance to the center of the circle and because we are considering a sphere $\textbf{n}=\frac{\bf{x}}{r}$ is the outward pointing unit normal. I can understand everything until the last equality sign. I would be inclined to think that $$\frac{\partial u}{\partial r}=u_r=u_x\frac{\partial x}{\partial r}+u_y\frac{\partial y}{\partial r}+u_z\frac{\partial z}{\partial r}$$ Now $r=\sqrt{x^2+y^2+z^2}$ implies that $x=\sqrt{r^2-y^2-z^2}$ and thus: $$\frac{\partial x}{\partial r}= \frac{2r}{2\sqrt{r^2-y^2-z^2}}=\frac{r}{x} $$ Similarly for $y$ and $z$ leading to the conclusion that $$u_r=\frac{r}{x}u_x+\frac{r}{y}u_y+\frac{r}{z}u_z$$ Which has all the fractions multiplying the partial derivatives inversed. I must be missing something obvious here or be making a stupid mistake, if anybody would point it out to me that would be very nice. I want to understand this proof and I can't continue if my thoughts completely disagree with what it says because that way I can never have confidence in the result!

share|improve this question
    
If you believe the first equality, then you should believe all else because on the unit sphere $r=n$. –  Matt Feb 18 '13 at 23:53
    
I do believe it and I thought of the same reasoning as you propose. The problem is that my reasoning seems to contradict it. Maybe the solution is simply stating that $x=r$ along the $x$ axis (we are dealing with a sphere centered at 0) and similarly for $y$ and $z$ and thus $\frac{x}{r}=\frac{r}{x}=1$? –  Slugger Feb 18 '13 at 23:58
    
The command for the partial derivative symbol $\partial$ that you replaced by a delta is \partial. –  joriki Feb 19 '13 at 0:25
    
Ah thank you so much I've been looking for that for ages. I thought it was a greek letter that wasn't in Latex or something :P –  Slugger Feb 19 '13 at 0:34
    
@Teun: Note that there's an edit link under the question, so it's never too late to get the formatting right :-) –  joriki Feb 19 '13 at 0:41
add comment

1 Answer 1

up vote 2 down vote accepted

This is a very common type of mistake that's caused by our suboptimal notation for partial derivatives. See this answer for a collection of answers I've written in response to similar confusions over partial derivatives.

The symbol $\displaystyle\frac{\partial x}{\partial r}$ in the context in which you're using it is intended to mean $\displaystyle\left.\frac{\partial x}{\partial r}\right|_{\theta,\phi}$, that is, the rate of change of $x$ with $r$ as you hold the angular coordinates $\theta$ and $\phi$ of the spherical coordinates $r$, $\theta$ and $\phi$ constant. What you've calculated is $\displaystyle\left.\frac{\partial x}{\partial r}\right|_{y,z}$, that is, the rate of change of $x$ with $r$ as you hold the Cartesian coordinates $y$ and $z$ constant. Such confusion arises very easily because our standard notation for partial derivatives doesn't show what's being held constant and is therefore ambiguous.

With $x=r\sin\theta\sin\phi$, you immediately find $\displaystyle\left.\frac{\partial x}{\partial r}\right|_{\theta,\phi}=\sin\theta\sin\phi=\frac xr$ as expected.

share|improve this answer
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.