anonymous
  • anonymous
ques
Mathematics
katieb
  • katieb
See more answers at brainly.com
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
Consider a surface given by \[\phi(x,y,z)\] \[x^2+y^2+z^2=9\] Now the normal to the surface is given by \[\vec \nabla\phi=2x\hat i+2y\hat j+2z\hat k\] Now my question is where did the 9 go, I know if u apply the operator to it will become 0 but shouldn't it be something like \[2x\hat i+2y\hat j+2z\hat k=\vec 0\]
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
We may think of the given surface \(x^2+y^2+z^2=9\) as a specific level surface for the level set of function : \( \phi(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2\), namely, \(\phi=9\).
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Next we use the fact the gradient of a function is perpendicular to the level surface to find a normal vector of given surface

Looking for something else?

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

More answers

ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
"gradient" operates on a function doesn't make much sense to say "gradient of an equation"
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yes, but shouldn't u also apply operator on the right side ??
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
we're simply using the fact that \(\nabla \phi \perp (\text{level surface}) \) to get a normal vector
anonymous
  • anonymous
Let me think about it lol
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
I think your equation is also correct as the gradient of \(g(x,y,z)=0\) is the 0 vector
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
In case you want to see it geometrically, may be consider a function of two variables, sketch the level curves, compute the gradient and verify...
anonymous
  • anonymous
gradient is only perpendicular at any point of the surface if it's a level surface right?
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Lets say, the function f(x,y) is defined for all real values of ordered pairs (x,y) then \(\nabla f(a,b)\) is perpendicular to the specific level curve that passes through the point \((a,b)\)
anonymous
  • anonymous
I think I understand it better now, you can only find gradient of a function, the function is \[x^2+y^2+z^2\] Doesn't make sense to find gradient of an equation We're really just using the fact that gradient is perpendicular to the level surface....
anonymous
  • anonymous
as long as the curve is level
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Nice! It will be more illuminating to see these geometrically...
anonymous
  • anonymous
But I don't understand the point of level surface. Suppose a point P on a level surface, if the value of the function at the point P is the same as the value of any other point on the surface, it's a level surface, but of course it will be same, because all points on the surface satisfy the equation of the surface
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Right, as you move on a specific level surface, the value of function remains constant. The gradient vector changes accordingly to remain perpendicular to the surface.
anonymous
  • anonymous
can u give an example of a non level surface?? even if we take \[\phi(x,y,z)=x+c\] where c is a constant \[\phi(x,y,z)-x=c\] This in itself defines a new function which makes it a level surface \[\psi(x,y,z)=c\] Now the value of the function at all points will be same and equal to c because they all lie on the surface it seems as if there is nothing like a "non level surface"
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
you get level surface by fixing the value of the function, so every intersection of function and a horizontal plane is a level surface
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
maybe i shouldn't say that, because, that makes sense only for a function of 2 variables..
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
You're right, any equation in "n" variables can be thought of as a "level surface" of a function of "n" variables. The function itself requires "n+1" axes to visualize, but the level surface requires only "n" axes.
anonymous
  • anonymous
What i'm saying is that for a level surface we have the form \[\phi(x,y,z)=c\] even if we have an equation such that both left and right side are entirely made of variables we can always rearrange to have all variables on one side and a constant on the right side \[x^2+y^2+z^2=xyz\]\[\frac{x^2+y^2+z^2}{xyz}=1\] of the form \[\phi(x,y,z)=c\] So it seems like no matter what we can't have a non level surface ??
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
RIght, you can always define a function such that your surface belongs to its level set
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Thats how we use gradient to compute a normal vector of ANY surface
anonymous
  • anonymous
oh ok I understand now, so it's a level surface for \[\psi(x,y,z)=\frac{x^2+y^2+z^2}{xyz}\] but not for \[\phi(x,y,z)=x^2+y^2+z^2\]
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Yep! the connection between gradient and normal vector is with level surfaces
anonymous
  • anonymous
It depends on our function, if it's level or not !!
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Hmm that sounds okay I guess! but honestly i never heard that phrase "if its level or not" before haha!
anonymous
  • anonymous
thanks:)
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
np:) I think you will like this video... http://ocw.mit.edu/courses/mathematics/18-02-multivariable-calculus-fall-2007/video-lectures/lecture-12-gradient/ when you're free try watching..
anonymous
  • anonymous
Yeh actually my syllabus is really messed up, they are teaching us vector calculus without teaching us about multivariable functions or partial derivatives For example \[ d(f(x,y,z))=\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}dx+\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}dy+\frac{\partial f}{\partial z}dz\] I didn't even knew what this meant and we were using it, I had to look it up separately to understand it
ganeshie8
  • ganeshie8
Ahh then I think those lectures really supplement your course of vector calculus. Except for the french accent, Prof. Denis Auroux is really good !
anonymous
  • anonymous
thx ill check it out
IrishBoy123
  • IrishBoy123
.
IrishBoy123
  • IrishBoy123
i spent ages chasing my tail on this so i hope this might be helpful - as i did find some peace of mind, eventually. [at the very least, i hope it makes some sense.] strictly speaking, you do not apply the del operator to the RHS, only the LHS, ie only to \(\phi\) because you have defined \(\phi(x,y,z)\) to be constant, you can say that \(d \Phi = 0\) **provided** you remain within the constraint \(\phi(x,y,z) = c\) , that is you limit yourself to x,y,z 's on the so-called level surface. that is why you created the level surface in the first place. so, for the paraboloid \(z = x^2 + y^2\), you create the level surface \(\phi = z - x^2 - y^2 = 0\) knowing that \(d \Phi = 0\) without needing to do any further analysis provided x,y,z are related by \(z = x^2 + y^2\) [which, BTW, is completely different from the scalar field \(\phi = z - x^2 - y^2 \) where there is no constraint on x,y,z values you choose, and where \(\vec \nabla \phi\) just gives you the direction/scale of greatest change ] then, because \(d \Phi = \phi_x dx + \phi_y dy + \phi_z dz\) it follows that \(\phi_x dx + \phi_y dy + \phi_z dz = 0\)) \(\implies <\phi _x,\phi _y, \phi _z > \bullet = 0\) and again because of the constraint \(\phi(x,y,z) = c\), you have \(\phi(x+dx,y+dy,z+dz) = c\) so runs along the surface and is the tangent vector, so \(\vec \nabla \phi \) must be the normal vector. this might sound trivial, but if you moved the paraboloid 5 units up the z axis as \(z = x^2 + y^2 + 5\), you could say \(\phi = z - x^2 - y^2 = 5\) or \(\phi = z - x^2 - y^2 -5 = 0\) and by definition, because of the constraint, \(d \phi = 0\) and then apply the operator to the LHS with the same result At least that's how i have come to see it...

Looking for something else?

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