[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Total Derivative and Output Display Question
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg65142] Re: Total Derivative and Output Display Question
*From*: Paul Abbott <paul at physics.uwa.edu.au>
*Date*: Wed, 15 Mar 2006 06:30:31 -0500 (EST)
*Organization*: The University of Western Australia
*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com
Matt wrote:
> I have been experimenting with the Dt[] function in Mathematica.
> The reason for this is that as I review or work with new topics in
> math, I try to see how the same results achieved by hand can or will be
> realized in Mathematica. I recently needed to review the concept of
> the total derivative, and as is my usual practice, to ensure I
> understood what I was doing, I came up with an example that would be a
> challenge, that is, a challenge for me.
> Here's what I did on paper (the actual example was two levels deeper
> than this, but this should suffice for the sake of argument):
>
> z = f(x,y);
> x = g(r,s);
> y = h(r,s);
> r = a(t,u);
> s = b(t,u);
>
> What is the total (partial) derivative of z with respect to 't'?
>
> On paper, I worked this out to (all derivatives should be considered as
> partial):
>
> dz/dt = dz/dx(dx/dr dr/dt + dx/ds ds/dt) + dz/dy(dy/dr dr/dt + dy/ds
> ds/dt).
Here is another approach:
D[z /. z -> z[x, y] /. {x -> x[r, s], y -> y[r, s]} /.
{r -> r[t], s -> s[t]}, t]
% /. {Derivative[1, 0][f_][__] :> HoldForm[D[f, r]],
Derivative[0, 1][f_][__] :> HoldForm[D[f, s]],
Derivative[1][f_][_] :> HoldForm[D[f, t]]}
> As you can see, there are no f's, g's, h's, a's, or b's, because we all
> understand that when we state something like z = f(x, y), we are
> stating that z is the dependent variable and x and y are the
> independent variables and 'f' is just part of the notation indicating
> that z is a function of x and y.
What you are after is an _implicit_ method of declaring the variable
dependency of a function; no such functionality is
built-in.
> As those of you who download it will see, there are numerous problems
> with my approach. The first is that it appears overly burdensome to
> convert from Mathematica's default output form, to the more
> 'traditional' mathematical form. Secondly, even after I convert, I end
> up with the differential operators being in the wrong order, and I'm
> not really sure about how to avoid that.
There are no differential operators in your final expression, only
derivatives of functions -- so the order of terms does not matter here.
Also, functionally the original output is perfectly suitable for further
calculations, so the "preferred" simpler typeset form is really for
aesthetics.
Enter x-1 into Mathematica. StandardForm re-orders this to -1 + x. If
you prefer x-1 convert to TraditionalForm.
Perhaps the discussion in "Structure and Interpretation of Classical
Mechanics" by Gerald Jay Sussman and Jack Wisdom, available online at
http://mitpress.mit.edu/SICM/ is of interest. In particular, have a read
of the Preface at
http://mitpress.mit.edu/SICM/book-Z-H-5.html
Cheers,
Paul
_______________________________________________________________________
Paul Abbott Phone: 61 8 6488 2734
School of Physics, M013 Fax: +61 8 6488 1014
The University of Western Australia (CRICOS Provider No 00126G)
AUSTRALIA http://physics.uwa.edu.au/~paul
Prev by Date:
**Re: 3D-plot over a triangle**
Next by Date:
**Finding a shorter form for coplanar point in 3D space**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Total Derivative and Output Display Question**
Next by thread:
**Plot resolution**
| |