1
$\begingroup$

Unlike usual situations in variational calculus where one has a functional like

$$J[f]=\int_{a}^{b}L[x,f(x)]dx$$

I find myself in the position where I have

$$J[f]=\int_{a}^{b}L[x,f(x),G[f(y)](x)]dx$$

such that I have, for example

$$L[x,f(x),G[f(y)](x)]=f(x)G[f(y)](x)$$

and

$$G[f(y)](x)=\int_{c}^{d}f(y)g(y,x)dy$$

How does one go about calculating $\frac{\delta J}{\delta f}$?

Naively treating $G[f(y)](x)$ as 'just' a function in $x$ for which $\partial G[f(y)]/\partial f(x)=0$ would give $\frac{\delta J}{\delta f}=\int_{c}^{d}f(y)g(y,x)dy$ but this seems wrong.

The next obvious thing would be to utilise the chain rule for functional derivatives, but it doesn't seem to be able to handle it since I can't write it in the form $L[G[f]]$ but instead have to write $L[f,G[f]]$, unless I'm missing something..

How does one proceed?

EDIT: a more complete (helpful?) way of phrasing the questions:

Given

$$ J[f]=\int dx L[x,f(x),G[f](x)]$$

and

$$ G[f](x) = \int dy M[x,y,f(y)]dy$$

I can write (I assume no derivatives of $f$ appear anywhere)

$$\frac{\partial J}{\partial f(x)}=\frac{\partial L}{\partial f(x)}$$

which gives me a relation in $x$

and I can write (again assuming no derivatives in $f$)

$$\frac{\partial J}{\partial f(y)}=\int dx'\frac{\partial L}{\partial G}(x')\frac{\partial M}{\partial f(y)}(x',y)$$

which gives me a relation in $y$

But how do I combine these results so that I have a single expression $\delta J/\delta f$ as an expression in $x$.

The answer below seems to me to suggest

$$\frac{\delta J}{\delta f}(x)=\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(x)}(x)+\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(y)}(y)\Bigg |_{y=x}$$

but I don't understand how to justify this.

Is it as simple as considering a 'total variational derivative' of the form

$$\delta J=\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(x)}\delta f(x)+\int dy\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(y)}\frac{\delta f(y)}{\delta f(x)}\delta f(x)$$

with the introduction of the integral over $y$ from the use of the variational chain rule

and with

$$\frac{\delta f(y)}{\delta f(x)}=\delta(y-x)$$

such that

$$\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(x)}(x)=\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(x)}+\int dy\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(y)}\delta(y-x)$$

so that the sifting property kicks in, effectively swapping the variables $x$ and $y$ (incidentally leading to the transpose terms in the matrix style answer below).

So the total variational derivative actually obeys

$$\int dx \frac{\delta J}{\delta f}(x)\phi(x) = \int dx \left(\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(x)}(x)+\int dy\frac{\delta J}{\delta f(y)}(y)\delta(y-x)\right)\phi(x)$$

Is the above correct?

This seems to give me the result below... But I'm unsure as to whether the above 'inspired by regular calculus' steps are legitimate here

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

I find it helpful in cases such as this to discretize the integrals, so that $g$ becomes a matrix with elements $g_{ij}=g(y_i,x_j)$ and $f$ becomes a vector with elements $f_i=f(x_i)$. Then $J[f]=\sum_{i,j}f_i f_j g_{ji}$ and if we perturb $f\mapsto f+\delta f$, with $\delta f_i =\epsilon\delta_{i,i_0}$, we obtain to first order in $\epsilon$ the variation $$\delta J=\sum_{ij}(\delta f_i f_j + f_i\delta f_j)g_{ji}=\sum_{j}\delta f_{i_0} f_jg_{ji_0} + \sum_i f_i\delta f_{i_0}g_{i_0i}=\delta f_{i_0}\sum_{j}f_j(g_{ji_0}+g_{i_0j})$$ $$\Rightarrow \frac{\delta J}{\delta f_{i}}=\sum_{j}f_j(g_{ji}+g_{ij}).$$ Returning from a discrete index $i$ to a continuous variable $x$, with an integral instead of a sum, we thus have $$\frac{\delta J}{\delta f}(x)=\int f(y)[g(y,x)+g(x,y)]dy$$

$\endgroup$
  • $\begingroup$ I'm completely lost as to where the transpose elements come from? $\endgroup$ – user3353819 Nov 26 '16 at 16:53
  • $\begingroup$ I added an intermediate step, is it clear now? $\endgroup$ – Carlo Beenakker Nov 26 '16 at 18:56
  • $\begingroup$ I follow the steps, but not 100% sure why it works. It seems very similar to taking the stance $\delta J/\delta f = \delta J/\delta f(x) + \delta J/\delta f(y)$ using the chain rule for the second one and then swapping the variables (in the second one). Both steps I can't justify to myself. The reason is I'm looking to generalise beyond just double linear sums... $\endgroup$ – user3353819 Nov 27 '16 at 1:48
  • $\begingroup$ Or to put it another way, does the last line of my edit above mesh with your approach? $\endgroup$ – user3353819 Nov 27 '16 at 3:00

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.