U are everywhere when it comes to educational help.... I was in my 11th and 12th... U taught me phy math and chem... Now I'm doing avionics engg and Ur in engg math side too... You are really really awesome... Like Santa's eternal present to humanity or something... Thanks a whole lot ... I've been watching your stuffs all the way from Newton's laws thermodynamics chemistry some basic math a lot many places including here... I've been watching Ur videos for 4-5 years now... Sir, you are one amazing person...
Holy shit man thank you for this. I was sick for a couple of weeks and couldn't study and fell behind in classes. This helped me so much, I can't thank you enough!
Awesome explanation sir! :) I don't know why they don't have more views. But don't let this discourage you. Please keep up the great work. We need teachers like you. Thank you.
Sir thank you for your help. I noticed that in the 10th term was that over partial of phi instead of over partial of rho . and our final answer in the 2nd term is also over partial of phi. Very much thank you sir
Why do we know the del * A notation works for non cartesian coordinates- how do we know doing all these calculations lead to an equivalent definition as del (cartesian) * A?
Sir, great video! but I am a bit confuse. Why in the cartesian coordinates when we want to get the divergence of a vector field (Le's say A) we would only get the partial of Asubx with respect to the x and so on, but in the polar coordinates to get the divergence of a vector field (A) we would get the partial of Asubx, Asuby and Asubz with respect to x and so on, it is like when we were getting the gradient.
Hi! In the third line, following the phi unit vector times the inverse of rho, I don't understand the partial derivative of A_subphi with respect to rho, shouldn't it be A_subphi with respect to phi? Thank you for your great work!
I'm sorry, but I really do think there is a mistake in the 3rd line which actually makes the final result wrong. You can see in the link: imgur.com/a/h7yIz Thank you for your time!
awesome thanks alot ....... notice u've a little mistake in the second part of the product all partial derivatives have to be with respect to fi , one of them is written ro.
Sir I think the third term in the answer above the final answer, whose terms are four, should be (1/rho)(partial of Asubphi/partial of phi), not (1/rho)(partial of Asubphi/partial of rho).
I think there is a mistake in the second line, because it is supposed to be only partial derivatives with respect to phi, and the fourth term is with respect to rho
I noticed that in the 10th term was that over partial of phi instead of over partial of rho . and our final answer in the 2nd term is also over partial of phi.
![I.N "HALLUCINATION" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/n5B5q1Hwt_U/mqdefault.jpg)
U are everywhere when it comes to educational help.... I was in my 11th and 12th... U taught me phy math and chem... Now I'm doing avionics engg and Ur in engg math side too...
You are really really awesome...
Like Santa's eternal present to humanity or something...
Thanks a whole lot ... I've been watching your stuffs all the way from Newton's laws thermodynamics chemistry some basic math a lot many places including here...
I've been watching Ur videos for 4-5 years now... Sir, you are one amazing person...
Thank you for your kind words. We are glad these videos are helping.
This Prof. is amazing. Thank you a lot. I now understand how this comes about.
Holy shit man thank you for this. I was sick for a couple of weeks and couldn't study and fell behind in classes. This helped me so much, I can't thank you enough!
Glad we can help you catch back up.
Awesome explanation sir! :) I don't know why they don't have more views. But don't let this discourage you. Please keep up the great work. We need teachers like you. Thank you.
Thank you for your comment.
thank you it was very interesting
but we can mention the second term of final equation is derived with respect to fi ans not for ro
I've been confused that why there pops up a rho in front of Ap
Finally understood it ,Thanks so much!
Glad it helped!
Very nice explanation--thanks for going into the detail--it makes everything come together nicely..
In the second line, shouldn't it be that dA(phi)/d(phi) in the production of second term? It's written as dA(phi)/d(rho).
you're right
Thanks, most textbooks does not show that process, and its quite simple to figure it out with some help, than you
Sir thank you for your help. I noticed that in the 10th term was that over partial of phi instead of over partial of rho . and our final answer in the 2nd term is also over partial of phi. Very much thank you sir
This also tripped me up for a bit. Thank you for the clarification
Why do we know the del * A notation works for non cartesian coordinates- how do we know doing all these calculations lead to an equivalent definition as del (cartesian) * A?
Great explanation!
Sir, great video! but I am a bit confuse. Why in the cartesian coordinates when we want to get the divergence of a vector field (Le's say A) we would only get the partial of Asubx with respect to the x and so on, but in the polar coordinates to get the divergence of a vector field (A) we would get the partial of Asubx, Asuby and Asubz with respect to x and so on, it is like when we were getting the gradient.
Thanks so much for all the hard work.
If you are likely to be possible these lectures pdf
Hi!
In the third line, following the phi unit vector times the inverse of rho, I don't understand the partial derivative of A_subphi with respect to rho, shouldn't it be A_subphi with respect to phi?
Thank you for your great work!
I agree that these partial derivatives are confusing. But if you spend the time and work through them, you'll find that they are correct.
I'm sorry, but I really do think there is a mistake in the 3rd line which actually makes the final result wrong.
You can see in the link: imgur.com/a/h7yIz
Thank you for your time!
I believe you are correct, there is an error in second line 4th term. It should be d/dphi
Hi Prof, there's an error in the 4th term of the second line. Kindly check it out
why do you take the partial derivative of each component if the dot product only multiplies parallel components?
You want to be able to show mathematically that you can get the correct result by following the standard definition and working it out.
quality content
awesome thanks alot ....... notice u've a little mistake in the second part of the product all partial derivatives have to be with respect to fi , one of them is written ro.
Sir I think the third term in the answer above the final answer, whose terms are four, should be (1/rho)(partial of Asubphi/partial of phi), not (1/rho)(partial of Asubphi/partial of rho).
I did not got how u wrote d rho over d phe is equal to phe unit vector ,how rho is changing with respect to phe
I think there is a mistake in the second line, because it is supposed to be only partial derivatives with respect to phi, and the fourth term is with respect to rho
me too
I noticed that in the 10th term was that over partial of phi instead of over partial of rho . and our final answer in the 2nd term is also over partial of phi.