anonymous
  • anonymous
What's the proof of the Euler-Lagrange requirement for minimising an integral?
Physics
katieb
  • katieb
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this
and thousands of other questions

anonymous
  • anonymous
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euler%E2%80%93Lagrange_equation Open the section labeled "Derivation of one-dimensional Euler-Lagrange equation." All you're really doing is re-doing the episilon/delta thing you did when you first derived derivatives of functions, however. It's just that you're working with functionals. That actually makes it easier, however, as functionals are usually much better behaved than functions.
anonymous
  • anonymous
http://upload.wikimedia.org/math/f/6/e/f6ee48b778d912689720cd77e1f4a0b3.png This is true??
anonymous
  • anonymous
\[F_{x} =x^2\] \[\frac{1}{dx}\int\limits_0^3x^2dt=\int\limits_0^32xdt\] The left side will be 0 and the right side not necessarily so.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
And can you explain how the fundamental Lemming applies here specifically?
anonymous
  • anonymous
Also: where is the proof that the minimum occurs when epsilon is 0? I think it is assumed in this proof- could you direct me to it?
anonymous
  • anonymous
In the Wikipedia derivation you are taking the derivative of a *parameter* of the integrand, while in your example above you are switching the order of differentiation and integration with respect to the variable of integration -- which is a definite no-no. They are very different things. I think if you are not clear on when you can and can't differentiate under the integral, you need to get clear on that before you can tackle the calculus of variations.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.