0
$\begingroup$

Suppose $\vec X = (u, v, w)$ with u = u (x, y, z) ; v = v (x, y, z) ; w = w (x, y, z). And a fixed vector $\vec Y =(a, b, c)$ ; a, b, c are constant.

I am just informed that: $(\vec{Y} \cdot \nabla) \vec{X}$ is the directional derivative of $\vec X$ in the direction $\vec Y$. But I don't understand this information.

What I think is:

$$(\vec{Y} \cdot \nabla) \vec{X} = \left (a\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+b\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+c\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right )\vec X = \left (a\frac{\partial}{\partial x}+b\frac{\partial}{\partial y}+c\frac{\partial}{\partial z}\right )(u\vec i+v\vec j+w\vec k)$$

$$=\left (a\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+b\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}+c\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}\right )\vec i+\left (a\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}+b\frac{\partial v}{\partial y}+c\frac{\partial v}{\partial z}\right )\vec j+\left (a\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}+b\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}+c\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}\right )\vec k \space \space (*)$$

And if I have to derive the directional derivative of $\vec X$ in the direction $\vec Y$ by myself, thing will be (actually this is what I learned from school): $$\frac{\partial \vec X}{\partial \vec Y} = \frac{\partial u}{\partial \vec Y}\space \vec i+\frac{\partial v}{\partial \vec Y}\space \vec j+\frac{\partial w}{\partial \vec Y}\space \vec k $$

$$=\left (cos \alpha\frac{\partial u}{\partial x}+cos \beta\frac{\partial u}{\partial y}+cos \gamma\frac{\partial u}{\partial z}\right )\vec i+\left (cos \alpha\frac{\partial v}{\partial x}+cos \beta\frac{\partial v}{\partial y}+cos \gamma\frac{\partial v}{\partial z}\right )\vec j+\left (cos \alpha\frac{\partial w}{\partial x}+cos \beta\frac{\partial w}{\partial y}+cos \gamma\frac{\partial w}{\partial z}\right )\vec k \space \space (**) $$

with cos $\alpha$, cos $\beta$, cos $\gamma$ are the coordinates of a unit vector in the direction $\vec Y$. Clearly, $cos\alpha = a/\sqrt{a^2+b^2+c^2}$, $cos\beta = b/\sqrt{a^2+b^2+c^2}$, $cos\gamma = c/\sqrt{a^2+b^2+c^2}$.

Compare (*) and (**), you will understand my problem, which way of thinking is wrong ?

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Consider a scalar function $f:\>{\mathbb R}^3\to{\mathbb R}$ for simplicity. Given a point ${\bf p}$ in the domain of $f$ there are two notions of directional derivatives of $f$ at ${\bf p}$ in use:

(i) Given a unit vector ${\bf u}=(u_1,u_2,u_3)\in S^2$, whereby $u_i=\cos\bigl(\angle({\bf u},{\bf e}_i)\bigr)$ one can define the directional derivative of $f$ at ${\bf p}$ in direction ${\bf u}$ as $$D_{\bf u}f({\bf p}):=\lim_{t\to0+}{f(p+t{\bf u})-f(p)\over t}=\nabla f({\bf p})\cdot{\bf u}\ .$$ Here the onesided limit may exist even in cases where $f$ is not differentiable at ${\bf p}$, e.g. for $f({\bf x}):=|{\bf x}|$ at the origin. This directional derivative corresponds to the formula you remember from high school (your second formula). But I'd never write a vector in the denominator of anything, even a mere "symbol".

(ii) Assume that $f$ is indeed differentiable at ${\bf p}$. Then, given any tangent vector ${\bf X}$ at ${\bf p}$, one defines the directional derivative of $f$ at ${\bf p}$ in direction ${\bf X}$ as $$D_{\bf X}f({\bf p}):=\lim_{t\to0}{f({\bf p}+t{\bf X})-f({\bf p})\over t}=\nabla f({\bf p})\cdot{\bf X}\ .\tag{1}$$ The last equality sign results from the chain rule. Here you can of course replace the RHS by ${\bf X}\cdot \nabla f({\bf p})$, which is your first formula. This writing of the directional derivative conveys the interpretation that ${\bf X}$ somehow "acts" on the function $f$, whereas $(1)$ conveys the interpretation that we want to know the increment of $f$ as a function of the variable increment ${\bf X}$.

In the second ("more modern") version (ii) of the directional derivative the vector ${\bf X}$ does not only carry directional information, as the ${\bf u}$ in (i) did, but is a fullfledged vector having direction and length.

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ so the 2 formulas in my question are both true ? In my question, the directional derivative in second version is equal the directional derivative in first version dividing by the length of $\vec Y$, is that ok ?? so how to know which version people choose when they show me a value of a directional derivative? $\endgroup$ – Dat Sep 10 '17 at 10:39
  • $\begingroup$ The people "informing" you about $Y\cdot \nabla X$ had my explanation (ii) in mind. $\endgroup$ – Christian Blatter Sep 10 '17 at 12:18

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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