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.

I hate to do this but there are no solutions and I am really struggling to interpret what it means.

$f:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}$, $f(X)=\|X \|^2$ ($X=$ the vector $(x,y,z)$) and $P:\mathbb{R}^3\to\mathbb{R}^3$ $P(X) = A\times X$ where $A$ is the vector $(a_1,a_2,a_3)$ (constant)

a) Calculate gradient $\nabla f(X)$

I got $(2x,2y,2z)$ which I am pretty sure is fine (I'd love a "yeah it is"), this makes sense, because $\| X\|^2$ is "radius squared" and this vector is in the direction "pointing away from" the origin in the direction $x,y,z$.

It passes the "sanity check" basically.

b) calculate the 3x3 matrix $DP(X)$ well $A\times X$ is: \begin{pmatrix} a_2 z - a_3 y\\ a_1 z - a_3 x\\ a_1 y - a_2 x\\ \end{pmatrix}

so a row in the matrix is the change in the row in $P(X)$ wrt x, y and z.

This gives: \begin{pmatrix}0 & -a_3 & a_2 \\ -a_3 & 0 & a_1 \\-a_2 & a_1 & 0\end{pmatrix}

(I'd love a "that's right" here too)

so I'm fine with that.... here's the question

c) using the chain rule or otherwise, show that $\nabla (f\circ P)(X) = 2\|A\|^2 X - 2(A\cdot X)A$

where T is the upside down triangle. the @ sign denotes composition

DOES IT MEAN: "gradient of (f(P(x)))" "Tf(P(X))" we worked out Tf in part a (2x,2y,2z) = 2(x,y,z) so 2P(X)....

Why the chain rule? Where does differentiation come into play?

I've probably missed something simple, but yes, quite unsure of this part c.

share|improve this question
    
Welcome to MSE! It really helps readability to format questions using MathJax (see FAQ). Regards –  Amzoti Jun 2 '13 at 18:18
    
I made a few edits which may indicate how to proceed... –  copper.hat Jun 2 '13 at 18:19
    
Thanks guys, I edited right afterwards to preserve the format, but that's A LOT better, thanks for clearing it up, forgive my old "Yahoo Answers" ways (I joined, went back there, now I'm here again). @copper.hat –  Alec Teal Jun 2 '13 at 18:26
    
Matrix can be done by \begin{pmatrix}0 & -a_3 & a_2 \\ -a_3 & 0 & a_1 \\-a_2 & a_1 & 0\end{pmatrix}: $$\begin{pmatrix}0 & -a_3 & a_2 \\ -a_3 & 0 & a_1 \\-a_2 & a_1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$$ –  Shuhao Cao Jun 2 '13 at 18:30
1  
@f.nasim DP(X) is the Jacobian Matrix of P(X), partial P(X) / partial X is a way of writing it (X is a vector remember) Thanks. –  Alec Teal Jun 2 '13 at 18:42

2 Answers 2

up vote 0 down vote accepted

a) It's ok. No need for sanity checks, as $\nabla f(X)=\begin{pmatrix}\partial_x f\\\partial_y f\\\partial_z f \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}\partial_x (x^2+y^2+z^2)\\\partial_y (x^2+y^2+z^2)\\\partial_z (x^2+y^2+z^2) \end{pmatrix}=\begin{pmatrix}2x\\2y\\2z \end{pmatrix}$. b) Here you should obtain a different result. There is an "intuition" rule:

$\displaystyle A\times X = \det\begin{pmatrix}\vec e_x&\vec e_y&\vec e_z\\a_1&a_2&a_3\\x&y&z\end{pmatrix} =\vec e_x(za_2-ya_3)+\vec e_y(xa_3-za_1)+\vec e_z(ya_1-xa_2)=\begin{pmatrix}za_2-ya_3\\xa_3-za_1\\ya_1-xa_2\end{pmatrix}.$

Hence your $DP(X)$ gradient is \begin{pmatrix}0&-a_3&a_2\\a_3&0&-a_1\\-a_2&a_1&0\end{pmatrix}

c) Here you can either write the expression explicitly:

$\nabla(f\circ P)(X) = \nabla ((za_2-ya_3)^2+(xa_3-za_1)^2+(ya_1-xa_2)^2)$

$=\begin{pmatrix}2xa_3^2-2a_1a_3z+2xa_2^2-2ya_1a_2\\ 2ya_3^2+2ya_1^2-2xa_1a_2-2za_2a_3\\ 2za_2^2+2za_1^2-2xa_3a_1-2ya_2a_3\end{pmatrix}=2\|A\|^2X - 2\begin{pmatrix} a_1a_1x+ a_1a_3z+ ya_1a_2\\ ya_2a_2 +xa_1a_2+za_2a_3\\ za_3a_3xa_3a_1+ya_2a_3\end{pmatrix} $

$= 2\|A\|^2X - 2(A\cdot X)A$.

or you can use the chain rule $\nabla (f\circ P)(X) = \nabla f (P(X))\circ DP(X) = 2P(X)\circ DP$ to arrive to the same result as Ros suggested.

It's up to you to decide which way is faster/safer for you.

EDIT On the chain rule: (I can see why there could be some difficulties here, I'll try to stay simple).

Let's say, we note $P_i$ - the elements of the vector $P(X)$ and $\vec e_i$ - unitary basis, so $P(X) = \sum_{i=1}^3 P_i \vec e_i$. Additionaly, we will note our coordinates as $x_i$; it might be useful for future, when the dimension becomes arbitrary and/or you study tensors. Then $f(P(X)) = \sum_{i=1}^3 P_i^2$.

The gradient of an arbitrary function writes $\nabla g(X) = \sum_i \partial_{x_i}g(X)\cdot \vec e_i$, so in our case

$\nabla (f (P(X)) =\sum_{i=1}^3\partial_{x_j}(f(P(X)))\vec e_j = \sum_{i=1}^3\sum_{j=1}^3\partial_{P_i}(f(P ))\partial_{x_j}P_i(X)\vec e_j$

$=\displaystyle \sum_{i=1}^3\sum_{j=1}^3 2P_i\partial_{x_j} P_i \cdot \vec e_j $

On the other hand, the elements of the matrix $(DP)_{ij}$ are found as $\partial _{x_j}P_i$, so it's now easy to interpet the required gradient as $\nabla f(P(X)) DP(X) = 2P(X) DP(X)$, where the first factor is seen as a row-vector and the second one - a square matrix.

Another simplification closely related to the nature of vector product is that $\forall X \, A\times X = DP\cdot X$ (the last one is a product of a square matrix and a vector), and $DP^T=-DP$. It allows to say that

$ (2P(X) DP(X))^T = -2DP(X) P(X) \text{(last term seen as a column vector)} = -2A\times (A\times X)$. By a so-called "vector triple product rule" (cf. wikipedia), it simplifies into $2((A\cdot A)X-(A\cdot X)A)$, which is exactly the desired result.

share|improve this answer
    
I feel much sillier now because ... well I get all of that and feel silly :P, I do however not get the chain rule as you've applied it there, looking at types alone: 2P(X) gives a 3x1 matrix (Vector), DP is a 3x3 matrix though. I think my issue lies with notation, which I ought to know, but if you wouldn't mind finishing that chain rule step, I'd be very appreciative. –  Alec Teal Jun 2 '13 at 21:55
    
@AlecTeal I've added some additional info in my answer –  TZakrevskiy Jun 3 '13 at 6:46

a) Seems fine.

b) Should be $M=\begin{pmatrix}0 & -a_3 & a_2 \\ a_3 & 0 & -a_1 \\-a_2 & a_1 & 0\end{pmatrix}$. The easiest way to see this, is that it is precisely the matrix expression for the cross product: $A \times X = MX$.

c) I guess that you're asked to compute $\nabla (f \circ P) (X)$. You can do it by using chain rule: $\nabla (f \circ P) (X) = \nabla f (PX) DP(X)$ which you can check it is equal to ($-2A\times (A\times X)$ and to) the required expression by a direct computation.

Another way to proceed is to explicitly write $f \circ P$ and then deduce its derivative (it would be painful).

share|improve this answer

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.