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.

Is the following statement correct and if yes does it need to satisfy specific requirement to be correct: $${ d \over dt} \sum_{j=1}^{N(t)} f(t,j) = \sum_{j=1}^{N(t)} {df(t,j) \over dt} + f(t,N(t)) {dN(t) \over dt}$$

share|improve this question
1  
What is the nature of $N(t)$? As I understand (as it is the upper limit of a sumation), it maps reals into naturals, so it cannot be continuous unless it is constant, but it can be locally continuous. Is it? –  Carlos Eugenio Thompson Pinzón Oct 16 '13 at 22:11
    
$N(t)$ is integer and it is a big number. During a time period of interest, let's say, $t=[0,T]$, it changes between $10^6$ to $2 \times 10^6$. –  Narj Oct 16 '13 at 22:22
    
Without presuming to speak for @Carlos, I believe his point was that if $N(t)$ is integer then it's either a constant map, or it's discontinuous (hence not differentiable on $[0,T]$. More context should therefore be provided. –  Jonathan Y. Oct 16 '13 at 22:35
    
Thank you both. I think I see your point now. $N(t)$ is not a constant map and it seems to be discontinuous. Here is more context: $N(t)$ is the number of cells in a medium under a specific experiment. $N$ grows as a result of cell-division. Since N is a big number I have to work with average values. Suppose that $f(t,j)$ is amount of one chemical agent at time t in cell j, then its average is, $ \overline f = { { \sum_{j=1}^{N(t)}f(t,j)}\over{N(t)}}$. –  Narj Oct 16 '13 at 22:54
    
I know the expression for ${{df(t,j)}\over{dt}}$ from some information about the intracellular kinetics of cells. I need to connect ${{d\overline f}\over{dt}}$ with ${{df(t,j)}\over{dt}}$. Is this any more clear? –  Narj Oct 16 '13 at 22:55
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 1 down vote accepted

There are two approaches for this problem: one is to define: $$f_j(t)=\left\{\begin{array}{ll}f(t,j)&j\le N(t)\\0&j>N(t)\end{array}\right.$$ Then $$\sum_{j=1}^{N(t)}f(t,j)=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}f_j(t)$$ and continue as you already know. $$\frac d{dt}\sum_{j=1}^{N(t)}f(t,j)=\sum_{j=1}^{\infty}f_j'(t)$$ Beware where each $f_j$ is non-continues.

The other approach is to have all points $\{t_i\}_{i\in I}$ in which $N(t)$ take a jump, meaning $N(t_i^-)\ne N(t_i^+)$. If $\{t_i\}_{i\in I}$ is an well ordered set, you can have: $0<t_1<t_2<\cdots<t_k<\cdots<T$, ($t_0=0$) and we define $N_i=N(t)$ for $t_{i-1}<t<t_i$. Note that $N_i$ should be well defined as there are no jumps in $N$ between $t_{i-1}$ and $t_i$.

So now you divide in this function defined by parts: $$\left.\frac d{dt}\sum_{j=1}^{N(t)}f(t,j)\right|_{t_{k-q}<t<t_k}=\sum_{j=1}^{N_k}\frac{df(t,j)}{dt}$$

The derivative at each $t_k$ does not exist unless both limits exists and are equal.

share|improve this answer
    
This is helpful. Thank you. I think the first approach is more suitable for me. About the second case, however, the discontinuity in $N$ happens very often and also it depends on the resolution of experimental measurements, while I am only interpolating some measurements to obtain the whole profile of $N$. So, perhaps I can't use the second approach. I just need to understand one more thing. In second equation, is there any reason for replacing $t$ with $x$ in the functions under summation? –  Narj Oct 17 '13 at 9:21
    
No reason. Just careless editing. Corrected. –  Carlos Eugenio Thompson Pinzón Oct 17 '13 at 10:18
add comment

Since $N(t)$ is an integer, $N'(t)$ only makes sense at points $t_0$ where $N(t)=N(t_0)$ for all $t$ in some neighbourhood of $t_0$; in such a case, $N'(t_0)=0$. On any point where $N(t)$ changes value, its derivative is not defined.

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.