Beautiful Proofs(#3): Area under a sine curve !

So, I read this post on the the area of the sine curve some time ago and in the bottom was this equally amazing comment :

Screenshot from 2017-06-07 00:19:11

\sum sin(\theta)d\theta =   Diameter of the circle/ The distance covered along the x axis starting from 0 and ending up at \pi.

And therefore by the same logic, it is extremely intuitive to see why:

\int\limits_{0}^{2\pi} sin/cos(x) dx = 0

Because if a dude starts at 0 and ends at 0/ 2\pi/ 4\pi \hdots, the effective distance that he covers is 0.

Circle_cos_sin.gif

If you still have trouble understanding, follow the blue point in the above gif and hopefully things become clearer.

 

Tricks that I wish I knew in High School : Trigonometry (#1)

I really wish that in High School the math curriculum would dig a little deeper into Complex Numbers because frankly Algebra in the Real Domain is not that elegant as it is in the Complex Domain.

To illustrate this let’s consider this dreaded formula that is often asked to be proved/ used in some other problems:

cos(nx)cos(mx) =  ?

Now in the complex domain:

cos(x) = \frac{e^{ix} + e^{-ix}}{2}

And therefore:

cos(mx) = \frac{e^{imx} + e^{-imx}}{2}

cos(nx) = \frac{e^{inx} + e^{-inx}}{2}

cos(mx)cos(nx)  = \left( \frac{e^{imx} + e^{-imx}}{2} \right) \left(  \frac{e^{inx} + e^{-inx}}{2} \right)

cos(mx)cos(nx)  = \frac{1}{4} \left( e^{i(m+n)x} + e^{-i(m+n)x} + e^{i(m-n)x} + e^{-i(m-n)x}   \right)

cos(mx)cos(nx)  = \frac{1}{2} \left( \left( \frac{e^{i(m+n)x} + e^{-i(m+n)x}}{2} \right) + \left( \frac{e^{i(m-n)x} + e^{-i(m-n)x}}{2} \right)   \right)

cos(mx)cos(nx)  = \frac{1}{2} \left( cos(m+n)x + cos(m-n)x   \right)
And similarly for its variants like cos(mx)sin(nx) and sin(mx)sin(nx) as well.

****

Now if you are in High School, that’s probably all that you will see. But if you have college friends and you took a peak what they rambled about in their notebooks, then you might this expression (for m \neq n):

I =  \int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi} cos(mx)cos(nx) dx \\

But you as a high schooler already know a formula for this expression:

I =  \int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi} \left( cos(m+n)x + cos(m-n)x   \right)dx \\

I =  \int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi} cos(\lambda_1 x) dx + \int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi} cos(\lambda_2 x) dx \\ 

where \lambda_1, \lambda_2 are merely some numbers. Now you plot some of these values for lambda i.e (\lambda = 1,2, \hdots) and notice that since integration is the area under the curve, the areas cancel out for any real number. drawing.png

and so on….. Therefore:

I =  \int\limits_{-\pi}^{\pi} cos(mx)cos(nx)dx = 0

This is an important result from the view point of Fourier Series!

On the direction of the cross product of vectors

One of my math professors always told me:

Understand the concept and not the definition

A lot of times I have fallen into this pitfall where I seem to completely understand how to methodically do something without actually comprehending what it means. And only after several years after I first encountered the notion of cross products did I actually understand what they really meant. When I did, it was purely ecstatic!

 

Why on earth is the direction of cross product orthogonal ? Like seriously…

I mean this is one of the burning questions regarding the cross product and yet for some reason, textbooks don’t get to the bottom of this. One way to think about this is :

It is modeling a real life scenario!!

The scenario being :

When you try to twist a screw (clockwise screws being the convention) inside a block in the clockwise direction like so, the nail moves down and vice versa.

tumblr_inline_o5ew5ogSZ11srob4n_400

i.e When you move from the screw from u to v, then the direction of the cross product denotes the direction the screw will move.

tumblr_inline_o5ewlziDu81srob4n_250

That’s why the direction of the cross product is orthogonal. It’s really that simple!

 

Another perspective

Now that you get a physical feel for the direction of the cross product, there is another way of looking at the direction too:

Displacement is a vector. Velocity is a vector. Acceleration is a vector. As you might expect, angular displacement, angular velocity, and angular acceleration are all vectors, too.

But which way do they point ?

crossproduct

Let’s take a rolling tire. The velocity vector of every point in the tire is pointed in every other direction. BUT every point on a rolling tire has to have the same angular velocity – Magnitude and Direction.

How can we possibly assign a direction to the angular velocity ?

cross-product-simple

Well, the only way to ensure that the direction of the angular velocity is the same for every point is to make the direction of the angular velocity perpendicular to the plane of the tire.
Problem solved!

 

 

 

Why is the area under one hump of a sine curve exactly 2?

Girls' Angle

blog_073013_02

I was talking with a student recently who told me that he always found the fact that $latex int_0^{pi} sin x , dx = 2$ amazing. “How is it that the area under one hump of the sine curve comes out exactly 2?” He asked me if there is an easy way to see that, or is it something you just have to discover by doing the computation.

If you’ve wondered about this too, perhaps you’ll find the following of interest.

View original post 162 more words

Solving the Laplacian in Spherical Coordinates (#1)

In this post, let’s derive a general solution for the Laplacian in Spherical Coordinates. In future posts, we shall look at the application of this equation in the context of Fluids and Quantum Mechanics.

sph_coor

x = rsin\theta cos\phi
y = rsin\theta cos\phi
z = rcos\theta

where

0 \leq r < \infty
0 \leq \theta \leq \pi
0 \leq \phi < 2\pi

The Laplacian in Spherical coordinates in its ultimate glory is written as follows:

\nabla ^{2}f ={\frac {1}{r^{2}}}{\frac {\partial }{\partial r}}\left(r^{2}{\frac {\partial f}{\partial r}}\right)+{\frac {1}{r^{2}\sin \theta }}{\frac {\partial }{\partial \theta }}\left(\sin \theta {\frac {\partial f}{\partial \theta }}\right)+{\frac {1}{r^{2}\sin ^{2}\theta }}{\frac {\partial ^{2}f}{\partial \phi ^{2}}} = 0

To solve it we use the method of separation of variables.

f = R(r)\Theta(\theta)\Phi(\phi)

Plugging in the value of f into the Laplacian, we get that :

\frac{\Theta \Phi}{r^2} \frac{d}{dr} \left( r^2\frac{dR}{dr} \right) + \frac{R \Phi}{r^2 sin \theta} \frac{d}{d \theta} \left( sin \theta \frac{d\Theta}{d\theta} \right) + \frac{\Theta R}{r^2 sin^2 \theta} \frac{d^2 \Phi}{d\phi^2} = 0

Dividing throughout by R\Theta\Phi and multiplying throughout by r^2, further simplifies into:

\underbrace{ \frac{1}{R} \frac{d}{dr} \left( r^2\frac{dR}{dr} \right)}_{h(r)} + \underbrace{\frac{1}{\Theta sin \theta} \frac{d}{d \theta} \left( sin \theta \frac{d\Theta}{d\theta} \right) + \frac{1}{\Phi sin^2 \theta} \frac{d^2 \Phi}{d\phi^2}}_{g(\theta,\phi)} = 0

It can be observed that the first expression in the differential equation is merely a function of r and the remaining a function of \theta and \phi only. Therefore, we equate the first expression to be \lambda = l(l+1) and the second to be -\lambda = -l(l+1). The reason for choosing the peculiar value of l(l+1) is explained in another post.

\underbrace{ \frac{1}{R} \frac{d}{dr} \left( r^2\frac{dR}{dr} \right)}_{l(l+1)} + \underbrace{\frac{1}{\Theta sin \theta} \frac{d}{d \theta} \left( sin \theta \frac{d\Theta}{d\theta} \right) + \frac{1}{\Phi sin^2 \theta} \frac{d^2 \Phi}{d\phi^2}}_{-l(l+1)} = 0 (1)

 

The first expression in (1) the Euler-Cauchy equation in r.

\frac{d}{dr} \left( r^2\frac{dR}{dr} \right) = l(l+1)R

The general solution of this has been in discussed in a previous post and it can be written as:

R(r) = C_1 r^l + \frac{C_2}{r^{l+1}}

 

The second expression in (1) takes the form as follows:

\frac{sin \theta}{\Theta} \frac{d}{d \theta} \left( sin \theta \frac{d\Theta}{dr} \right)+ l(l+1)sin^2 \theta + \frac{1}{\Phi} \frac{d^2 \Phi}{d\phi^2} = 0

The following observation can be made similar to the previous analysis

\underbrace{\frac{sin \theta}{\Theta} \frac{d}{d \theta} \left( sin \theta \frac{d\Theta}{dr} \right)+ l(l+1)sin^2 \theta }_{m^2} + \underbrace{\frac{1}{\Phi} \frac{d^2 \Phi}{d\phi^2}}_{-m^2} = 0 (2)

 

The first expression in the above equation (2) is the Associated Legendre Differential equation.

\frac{sin \theta}{\Theta} \frac{d}{d \theta} \left( sin \theta \frac{d\Theta}{dr} \right)+ l(l+1)sin^2 \theta = m^2

sin \theta \frac{d}{d \theta} \left( sin \theta \frac{d\Theta}{dr} \right)+ \Theta \left( l(l+1)sin^2 \theta - m^2 \right) = 0

The general solution to this differential equation can be given as:
\Theta(\theta) = C_3 P_l^m(cos\theta) + C_4 Q_l^m(cos\theta)

 

The solution to the second term in the equation (2) is a trivial one:

\frac{d^2 \Phi}{d\phi^2} = m^2 \Phi
\Phi(\phi) = C_5 e^{im\phi} + C_6 e^{-im\phi}

 

Therefore the general solution to the Laplacian in Spherical coordinates is given by:

R\Theta\Phi = \left(C_1 r^l + \frac{C_2}{r^{l+1}} \right) \left(C_3 P_l^m(cos\theta) + C_4 Q_l^m(cos\theta \right) \left(C_5 e^{im\phi} + C_6 e^{-im\phi}\right)

A strange operator

In a previous post on using the Feynman’s trick for Discrete calculus, I used a very strange operator ( \triangledown ). And whose function is the following :

\triangledown n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{n^{\underline{k+1}}}{k+1}

What is this operator? Well, to be quite frank I am not sure of the name, but I used it as an analogy to Integration. i.e

\int x^{n} = \frac{x^{n+1}}{n+1} + C

What are the properties of this operator ? Let’s use the known fact that n^{\underline{k+1}} = (n-k) n^{\underline{k}}

\triangledown n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{n^{\underline{k+1}}}{k+1}

\triangledown n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{(n-k) n^{\underline{k}}}{k+1}

And applying the operator twice yields:

\triangledown^2 n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{n^{\underline{k+2}}}{(k+1)(k+2)}

\triangledown^2 n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{(n-k-1) n^{\underline{k+1}}}{(k+1)(k+2)}

\triangledown^2 n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{(n-k-1)(n-k) n^{\underline{k}}}{(k+1)(k+2)}

We can clearly see a pattern emerging from this already, applying the operator once more :

\triangledown^3 n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{(n-k-2)(n-k-1)(n-k) n^{\underline{k}}}{(k+1)(k+2)(k+3)}

\vdots

Or in general, the operator that has the characteristic prescribed in the previous post is the following:

\triangledown^m n^{\underline{k}} = \frac{n^{\underline{k+m}}}{(k+m)^{\underline{m}}} n^{\underline{k}}

If you guys are aware of the name of this operator, do ping me !

On the origins of Taylor/Maclaurin Series

Many a times it is not discussed as to How the Taylor/Maclaurin series came to be in its current form. This short snippet is all about it.

Let us assume that some function f(x) can be written as a power series expansion. i.e

f(x) =  a_0 + a_1 x + a_2 x^2 + \hdots .

We are left with the task of finding out the coefficients of the power series expansion.

Substitution x = 0, we obtain the value of a_0.

a_0 = f(0) .

Lets differentiate f(x) wrt x.

\frac{d}{dx} f(x) = a_1 + 2a_2 x + \hdots

Evaluating at x =0 , we get

\frac{d}{dx} f(0) = a_1

And likewise:

\frac{d^2}{dx^2} f(0) = 2.1.a_2 = 2! \space a_2

\frac{d^3}{dx^3} f(0) = 3.2.1.a_3 = 3! \space a_3

\vdots

\frac{d^n}{dx^n} f(0) = n.n-1...3.2.1.a_n = n! a_n

That’s it we have found all the coefficient values, the only thing left to do is to plug it back into the power series expression:

f(x) =  f(0) + \frac{d}{dx}f(0) \frac{x}{1!} + \frac{d^2}{dx^2}f(0) \frac{x^2}{2!} + \frac{d^3}{dx^3} f(0) \frac{x^3}{3!} \hdots .

The above series expanded about the point x = 0 is called as the ‘Maclaurin Series’. The same underlying principle can be extended for expanding about any other point as well i.e ‘Taylor Series’.