0
$\begingroup$

It's very very often and in many books depending on author there is mostly interchange of gradient $D$ and divergence $\nabla$.

What should I be careful about while dealing with such cases?
For example say $\int_\Omega v\Delta u$ using integration by parts and assuming that the boundary term vanishes this becomes $\int_\Omega Dv\cdot Du$.

Very often I also see the expression $\int_\Omega\nabla v\cdot\nabla u $, so this leads me to confusion sometimes.

  • 0
    $\Delta=\nabla^2$ doesn't really fit in your pattern: *So this leads me to confusion...*2012-07-26
  • 0
    I suggest writing $\mathrm{div}$ for divergence. It's annoying that \div is used for division in $\LaTeX$ but you can DeclareMathOperator.2012-07-26

2 Answers 2

2

These are cases when index notations becomes extremely helpful. Denote by $\partial_1 = \partial_x, \partial_2 = \partial_y, \partial_3 = \partial_z$ and for a vector write its components as $$ \vec{v} = v_1 \hat{x} + v_2 \hat{y} + v_3 \hat{z}$$ Then the divergence of a vector field is $$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot\vec{v} = \sum_{i = 1}^3 \partial_i v_i $$ The gradient vector of a scalar field has components $$ (\vec{\nabla f})_i = \partial_i f $$ and the Laplacian of a function is $$ \triangle f = \sum_i \partial_i \partial_i f $$

When doing computations, do them term by term (that is, expand out the sums if necessary) and in the end, when the $\partial_i$ hits on a scalar quantity, it is a gradient, and when the $\partial_i$ hits on a vector quantity indexed also by $i$ you get a divergence.

To illustrate: if $f$ be function a $\vec{v}$ a vector field, then the object $f \vec{v}$ is a vector field. Let us compute its divergence. We do it like so:

$$ \vec{\nabla}\cdot(f\vec{v}) = \sum_i \partial_i \left( f v_i\right)= \sum_i (\partial_i f)v_i + f \partial_i v_i \tag{1}$$

The first term then is interpreted as the dot product of the gradient vector $\vec{\nabla f}$ against the vector $\vec{v}$, so for this term "the divergence outside changed to a gradient inside". The second term contains the divergence of the vector field $\vec{v}$ it self, multiplied against the function $f$. So for this term the divergence remains a divergence.

The use of index notations is also extremely helpful when there are multiple sets of indices in play. Let $\vec{v}$ be a vector field, we can consider the gradient of its divergence $\vec{\nabla}(\vec{\nabla} \cdot \vec{v})$. Now, since partial derivatives commute, what happens when we try to interchange the derivatives? In index notation you have

$$ \underbrace{\partial_j}_{\text{the gradient}} \underbrace{\sum_i \partial_i v_i}_{\text{the divergence}} = \sum_i \partial_j \partial_i v_i = \sum_i \partial_i (\partial_j v_i)$$

which is now a divergence of an object with two indices (a tensor field, in fact). Using indices help enormously in keeping track where various operators hit: for example compare the above expression with the similar but different expression $$ (\triangle \vec{v})_j = \sum_i \partial_i \partial_i v_j $$


As an aside, (1) is basically the same as the integration by parts formula which you described.

3

It can be confusing because the divergence and the gradient are two different things that happen to share the same symbol, $\nabla$. The notation is slightly idiosyncratic: the gradient of $u$ is denoted $\nabla u$, which is the same as your $Du$, while the divergence is written $\nabla\cdot u$. So you can always tell whether $\nabla$ means gradient or divergence depending on whether or not it is followed by a dot.

  • 1
    "Even otherwise, you can't take the gradient of a vector field or the divergence of a scalar field" is one of those statements I'd be very careful about making: it may be a convenient mnemonic now, but one day the student may learn about the Navier-Stokes equations or about co-differentials in Riemannian geometry...2012-07-26
  • 0
    @Willie, that's true, I was being sloppy. In fluid dynamics one does take the gradient of velocity, but does the divergence of a scalar field ever make sense? I'll update my answer once I get your response.2012-07-26
  • 0
    Divergence can be defined (relative to a specified index) for any tensor field on a Riemannian manifold; and it can be defined for any multi-vectors (think dual of differential forms) on a orientable smooth manifold. Naturally this extends to the scalar field as a rank-0 contravariant tensor field. Of course, necessarily also its divergence is 0 (the same as the exterior derivative of a top form). With regards to the divergence of the scalar field, it is less important than the thing about gradients of vector fields, and I was just picking bones (because it is there to pick).2012-07-26
  • 1
    Also, you may want to add a few words about why after integrating by parts, the divergence can become a gradient...2012-07-26
  • 0
    @Willie, I just deleted the parts that weren't universally correct. Perhaps you could post an answer elaborating your last comment (though isn't it the *Laplacian* that's being integrated here?).2012-07-27
  • 0
    @WillieWong : Sir , can u explain how and why after integrating by parts , the divergence can become gradient.2012-07-27