text:
# A CRITICAL APPROACH TO TOTAL AND PARTIAL DERIVATIVES

## 1 Introduction

Our article is devoted to the discussion of the total derivative concept, a general and frequently applied concept of mathematical analysis. Indeed, the derivatives play a significant role in modern physical theories and are present in many basic physical laws.

Considering some of the basic statements of classical electrodynamics, one of the authors (A.E.Ch) paid attention to the fact of some inaccuracy of applying in physics the concept of the partial derivative of the many variable function (see ). L. Schwartz  warned prudently against this inaccuracy (the text after Eq.(I,2;5) in ): “In a short narrative one identifies sometimes $`f_1`$ and $`f`$, saying, that is the same function (sic.!), represented with the help of the variable $`x_1`$ instead of $`x`$. Such a simplification is very dangerous and may result in very serious contradictions.111Here $`f=f(x)`$ is the function determined in a set $``$ with the values in a set $``$, $`f_1=fu`$, where $`u`$ is the mapping of some set $`_1`$ into the set $`:x=u(x_1)`$. L.Schwartz calls the function $`f_1`$ a foretype of the function $`f`$ under a variable substitution.

Such an inaccuracy and its consequences in some problems of physics inspired our interest to the total derivative concept in the classical analysis under the condition of double dependence from a time variable $`t`$: implicit and explicit ones. Such a situation is characteristic of many physical problems, first of all of classical mechanics (see for example, , where the author even introduces a new special term as “whole-partial derivative”) and classical electrodynamics (see, for instance, Section. 4 in  where it was considered in detail).

As a matter of fact, a concept of the partial derivative is habitually associated with a concept of the function of many variables, but a concept of the total derivative must be associated with another function, which is some restriction of the function of many variables. L.Schwartz did not introduce an additional co-term though he denoted repeatedly  the corresponding moment connected with applying of the total derivative concept.

We are interested in the most important point, namely, in an origination of the total derivative concept.

Thus, let us consider functions $`E`$ which are determined as

$$E[x_1(t),\mathrm{},x_{n1}(t),t]=_{\mathrm{def}}E[𝐱(t),t],$$
(1)
$$E(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},t)=_{\mathrm{def}}E(𝐱,t),$$
(2)
thereby emphasizing the need to distinguish the different functions: $`E[]`$ of one variable, $`E()`$ is the function of $`n`$ variables.

These functions evaluated at different points of the globally defined manifold $`O=R^{n1}\times R`$ are a source of confusion when we try to calculate total or partial derivatives, and can lead us to write down something meaningless. We shall explain this in detail in the next sections, using, to save writing, the notation introduced in (1) and (2) and a theoretical framework that will show that the problems and distinctions treated in this note have been not treated before.

Usually the functions $`E[]`$ and $`E()`$ represent the same physical value, being different functions in their mathematical origination.

Note that the authors neither in  nor in  do not distinguish this kind of function222as well as G.M.Fichtengoltz, who considers the case of double (explicit and implicit) dependence of functions on two variables, see , p. 388.. Ambiguities in the “notation” for partial differentiation also have been remarked by Arnold  p. 226 (p. 258 in English translation) without further development.

Therefore, an unallowable identification of the functions $`E[]`$ and $`E()`$ happens quite often.

For instance, in the well-known physical formulae

$$\frac{d}{dt}E=(𝐕)E+\frac{}{t}E$$

(here $`𝐕=\frac{d𝐱}{dt}`$) and

$$\frac{df}{dt}=(H,f)+\frac{f}{t},$$

where $`f`$ is some dynamical value, $`(H,f)`$ is the Poisson bracket, $`H`$ is the Hamilton function, the full derivatives in the $`lhs`$ and the partial derivative in the $`rhs`$ are applied to the different functions: there are the functions $`E[]`$ and $`f[]`$ in the $`lhs`$, and there are the functions $`E()`$ and $`f()`$ in the $`rhs`$ of the equation.

The difference between the functions:

$$E[x_1(t),\mathrm{},x_{n1}(t),t]=_{\mathrm{def}}E[𝐱(t),t],E(x_1,\mathrm{},x_{n1},t)=_{\mathrm{def}}E(𝐱,t)$$

is usually not remarked in the literature, and for this reason we can often write down meaningless symbols like:

$$\frac{}{t}E[𝐱(t),t],$$
(3)
and

$$\frac{d}{dt}E(𝐱,t).$$
(4)
The symbols (3) and (4) are meaningless, because the process denoted by the operator of partial differentiation can be applied only to functions of several independent variables and $`E[𝐱(t),t]`$ is not such a function. Meanwhile, the operator of total differentiation with respect to a given variable can be formally applied to functions of one variable only. However, we have a well-known formula to relate both concepts:

$$\frac{d}{dt}E=(𝐕)E+\frac{}{t}E$$
(5)
(here $`𝐕=\frac{d𝐱}{dt}`$).

Let us show that, in this form, Eq. (5) cannot be correct. What is the correct argument for the symbol $`E`$ on both sides? If we say that the correct argument for both sides is $`[𝐱(t),t]`$ we get the chain of symbols (3), but in this case, the operator of a partial differentiation would indicate that we must construct a new function in the form $`(E/t)`$, hence we use the following procedure:

$$\underset{\mathrm{\Delta }t0}{lim}\left\{\frac{E[𝐱(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }t\frac{d𝐱(t)}{dt},t+\mathrm{\Delta }t]E[𝐱(t),t]}{\mathrm{\Delta }t}\right\}.$$

But this is the definition of total differentiation! Thus, the symbols of total and of partial differentiation denote the same process, therefore, because $`E`$ is the same function on both sides of the equation, we get:

$$(𝐕)E[𝐱(t),t]=0$$

always. But even if the procedure which we followed were correct (which it is not, of course!), this equation is not correct for $`E`$ as a function of the functions $`𝐱(t)`$, because the partial differentiation would involve increments of the functions $`𝐱(t)`$ in the form $`𝐱(t)+\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱(t)`$ and we do not know how we must interpret this increment because we have two options: either $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱(t)=𝐱(t)𝐱^{}(t)`$, or $`\mathrm{\Delta }𝐱(t)=𝐱(t)𝐱(t^{})`$. Both are different processes because the first one involves changes in the functional form of the functions $`𝐱(t)`$, while the second involves changes in the position along the path defined by $`𝐱=𝐱(t)`$ but preserving the same functional form. Hence, it is clear that we have here different concepts. If we remember the definition of partial differentiation, we can see where the mistake is: “the symbol: $`\frac{}{t}E(𝐱,t)`$ means that we take the variations of $`t`$ when the values of x are constant”. It means that we make the only change $`t+\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ in the function. But this is only possible if the coordinates x are independent from $`t`$. Hence, we can see that the correct argument cannot be $`[𝐱(t),t]`$, because, as we have shown, this supposition leads to the incorrect result (5). If we make the other supposition, that the correct argument is $`(𝐱,t)`$ we can get the same conclusion, i.e., equation (5). Hence, none of these suppositions is correct. What is the solution, then? Actually, in the equation (5) we have two different functions: on the left hand side we have the function $`E[𝐱(t),t]`$ defined on a curve in a $`n`$-surface and on the right hand side we have the function $`E(𝐱,t)`$ defined on the all $`n`$-surface, which obviously are quite different functions, while we have a limiting procedure to get a unification of concepts in the realm of functions of one variable.

## 2 Theoretical framework

We shall begin describing the elements that we shall use in the development of the problem’s explanation. The globally defined coordinates of our manifold $`O`$ are given by $`𝐱,t`$, we define a function $`E:O\mathrm{}`$ where $`\mathrm{}`$ is the real line. Hence the values of the function $`E`$ on any point $`O`$ are given as $`E(𝐱,t)`$. However, we shall be interested in the 1-dimensional subsets of $`O`$, hence we denote any of them by $`T`$. To describe this set (a path) we must introduce a function of the form:

$$p(t)=𝐱(t),t$$
(6)
Otherwise we can introduce this function in the form:

$$p(s)=𝐱(s),t(s)$$
(7)
Parametrization (6) for the path is a special case of (7) when we choose the function: $`t(s)=s=t`$. We suppose that $`TO`$ is 1-dimensional, hence a path in $`O`$. This path can be the integral curve of a set of ordinary differential equations (ODE’s), we mean, it defines the orbit of a 1-parametric group action over $`O`$. If this action is a free action we get that for any pair $`p,qO`$ there exists an integral curve joining them when we define one of them as an initial value. In this way the paths cover the manifold $`O`$ defining a foliation by 1-dimensional sheets. The whole previous construction is better understood if we introduce the tangent vector space at each point of $`O`$. If the tangent vector field is defined at all the points of $`O`$ by the equation:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}f_i(𝐱,t)\frac{}{x_i}+\frac{}{t},$$
(8)
we can define the tangent vectors at each point of the path with the help of the set of ODE’s:

$$\frac{dx_i(t)}{dt}=f_i[𝐱(t),t];i=1,\mathrm{},n1,$$
(9)
whose integral curves allow us to construct the 1-dimensional foliation sheets. The system (5) is the answer to a very important question that we must keep in mind all along the work. The question is:

> (AA) How can we construct sheets $`T`$ such that its tangent vectors are given by the vector field with components $`f_i`$?

We cannot overestimate the question. Hence our starting point is a situation of total lack of knowledge regarding the form of the 1-dimensional sheet $`T`$. We just have the form of the vector field $`f_i`$, that is, we know the distribution of vector fields in the space. In  we have called this situation the {$`f`$}-case. In any usual treatment of the subject of differential geometry any distribution of vector spaces if the system (9) is solvable is called “integrable”. Substantially the same is done to construct foliation in more dimensions, the obvious change is that we don’t want 1-dimensional sheets, instead, we want to construct $`m<n1`$ dimensional submanifolds at each point. The basic question is, again (AA). We must remark something very important, when we pass from (8) to (9) we have changed the functions $`f_i(x,t)`$ evaluated at any point on the manifold $`O`$, by the functions $`f_i(x(t),t)`$ which are evaluated on the sheets of the foliation. We have supposed, to do this operation, that the sheets exist. To prove this supposition, it is usual to impose a Holder condition on the vector fields, this is sometimes enough to prove the existence of solutions by fixed point arguments. However, when we can construct solutions for the system, a formal proof may be avoided. This change from the globally defined manifold to the local integral sheets of the foliation is done noncritically. This criticism is what we shall carry out in the next sections inside the framework described in this section.

## 3 The problem

We give the curve $`T`$ using the parametrization (6) but we write down:

$$g(t)=Ep(t)$$
(10)
where $`g(t)`$ is 1-variable function, $`E`$ and $`p`$ denote an $`n`$-variable function defined on $`O`$ and a curve on $`O`$, respectively. This way of writing down the functions involved is more precise than the usual notations (1) and (2). For this reason only the use of notations like (1) and (2) should be suppressed. The really important task becomes apparent when we try to differentiate totally or partially the functions (1) and (2). If we want to partially differentiate (2) we have no problem, because the usual definition of a partial derivative requires that we must change one of the variables while keeping the rest constant. In the same way, if we want to derive with respect to $`t`$ the expression (1) we should not have any problem, because it is a differentiation of a one variable function when we know the forms of $`E`$ and $`p`$. Let’s show now the problems.

> (A) If we want to differentiate totally (2) in any variable without using, for the moment, any path, a moment of reflection shows us that we really employ the definition of a partial derivative. Hence our use of the symbol $`dE(𝐱,t)/dt`$ is wrong. It is so because the function is an n-variable function and our conventions for the use of symbols (the syntactical rules) tell us that for $`n`$-variable functions the correct notation is $``$. Hence, the symbol $`dE(𝐱,t)/dt`$ is not correct, but it is very easy to write down the right symbols.

> (B) Now, if we want to partially differentiate (1) with respect to $`t`$, a moment of reflection shows us that when we try to give an increment to $`t`$, while keeping constant the other set of variables, this last condition cannot be fulfilled because if $`t`$ is incremented by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }t`$ the other variables are incremented by an amount $`(d𝐱(t)/dt)\mathrm{\Delta }t`$. Hence we cannot keep them constant and we have a problem here, because we cannot apply the usual definition of partial differentiation to expression (1).

To our knowledge, this situation has not been pointed out before in the usual treatises. However, a brief search in the corresponding literature gives us the paper by K. Brownstein  where the concept of so called “whole partial derivative” is introduced. Let’s see if it gives us some light. We shall use the framework outlined in section 2. Brownstein starts with a function of the form:

$$G[\mathrm{\Phi }(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4),q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4],$$
(11)
which falls within the scope of our general framework. To see this we write down the following coordinate cover:

$$\mathrm{\Phi }_1(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4),\mathrm{\Phi }_2(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4),\mathrm{\Phi }_3(q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4),q_1,q_2,q_3,q_4,$$
(12)
which is more general than the one used by Brownstein in function (11). In this case we are over a 4-dimensional manifold represented on a 7-dimensional manifold. We can generate 4-dimensional sheets such that the manifold be covered by them if we can integrate the following system of first order coupled partial differential equations:

$$\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }(𝐪)}{q_j}=F_i(\mathrm{\Phi }_1(𝐪),\mathrm{\Phi }_2(𝐪),\mathrm{\Phi }_3(𝐪),q1,q2,q3,q4);i=1,\mathrm{},3,j=1,\mathrm{},4.$$
(13)
The generated group of transformations is a 4-parametric group. Just like before, the functions $`F_i`$ are the components of a known vector field over the manifold. And of course, here the same noncritical change has been realized, because we have started at the manifold, and we have finalized at its sub-manifold. A very important feature, which we shall express later in the 1-dimensional case, appears here. The partial differential equations (13) must be compatible differential equations, that is: their cross derivatives must coincide. However, to establish the conditions we must partially differentiate the functions at the right of (13), but this is not possible because of the argument already used (B). The cross differentiation condition leads us to the usual condition of commutativity of vector fields, or in general grounds to the generators of a Lie algebra, basic to the Frobenius’ theory of integrability. However, we see that we don’t know how to calculate this condition because of the argument (B).

Coming back to Brownstein’s case let’s discover again the same difficulties as in the 1-dimensional. If we suppose, as Brownstein does, that we can partially differentiate the function $`G`$ in (11) with respect to any q variable, we fall again within the argument (B): the definition of the partial derivative requires that we must change one of the $`q`$s only. But if we change any $`q`$ by an amount $`\mathrm{\Delta }q`$ we change the variable $`\mathrm{\Phi }`$ by an amount $`(\mathrm{\Phi }/q)\mathrm{\Delta }q`$. Hence, Brownstein’s concept is arguable because we believe he makes the same mistakes that we are pointing out here. Brownstein’s mistake is as follows: he must first define the partial derivatives which appear in his formula (10) 333Eq. (10) in :
$$\frac{\overline{}G}{\overline{}q^3}=\frac{G}{\mathrm{\Phi }}\frac{\mathrm{\Phi }}{q^3}+\frac{G}{q^3}$$
, derivatives which are in doubt because of the argument (B). So we can conclude that he achieves his goal: to introduce a new symbol and a new name, but based on noncritical concepts.

## 4 A solution

Let’s continue with our critical analysis. For this we shall write down a highly incorrect (because of the argument (B)), but nonetheless, very popular, expression:

$$\frac{dE[𝐱(t),t]}{dt}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}\frac{dx_i}{dt}\frac{E[𝐱(t),t]}{x_i}+\frac{E[𝐱(t),t]}{t}.$$
(14)
One of the first mistakes is the following: it is supposed that the function $`E[𝐱(t),t]`$ is the same on both sides of the equation. Let’s apply the (B) argument to (14):

> 1. At the right of the equation we see formations like $`E[𝐱(t),t]/t`$, which by the use of the argument (B), have been shown to be wrongly defined.
>
> 2. At the left we see the symbol $`dE[𝐱(t),t]/dt`$ which is not defined because its “definition”, the right side, is wrongly defined, and we have no other definition for $`dE[𝐱(t),t]/dt`$. Hence, we don’t know how to calculate it.

Thus, a solution is required. This can be obtained with the help of equation (10) and some distinctions based upon it. The first and most important thing is to suppose that $`g(t)=Ep(t)`$ is a 1-variable function only and that it is known. Hence, the usual definition of 1-variable derivation is available. This supposition implies that we must know the path $`p`$ and the functional form of $`E`$. We have analyzed this supposition in detail in another paper , and so we shall not repeat it. Hence, it is the case that on the left side of (14) $`dg(t)/dt`$ must appear and not the function $`E`$ defined along the path. On the right side the function $`E[𝐱,t]`$ must appear to get a partial derivative using the usual definition. Finally, as it is the case that the function $`d𝐱(t)/dt`$ is defined on one common point of a class of paths and not all over the space $`O`$, as is the case for $`E(𝐱,t)`$ we shall write instead of $`d𝐱(t)/dt`$ the functions $`f_i(𝐱,t)`$ defined all over $`O`$ to get on the right hand side the expression:

$$\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}f_i(𝐱,t)\frac{E(𝐱,t)}{x_i}+\frac{E(𝐱,t)}{t}.$$
(15)
But what is the relation between $`dg(t)/dt`$ with the expression (15)? We cannot make them equal all over the space $`O`$, because this is not correct, we shall fall in previous mistakes again. However both expressions must be the same over a path, hence we approximate the expression (15) to the points of one path with the help of a limiting procedure:

$$\frac{dg(t)}{dt}=\underset{xp}{lim}\left(\underset{i=1}{\overset{n1}{}}f_i(𝐱,t)\frac{E(𝐱,t)}{x_i}+\frac{E(𝐱,t)}{t}\right)$$
(16)
We have discussed in detail several ways to use this expression in  using the supposition that, in fact, we have integrability. Here we shall just discuss the uses in the non-integrable case. But first let’s remark the advantages of (16):

> 1.- On the left hand side we have a function of just one variable, hence the definition of derivative is clear.
>
> 2.- On the right hand side we have only usual partial derivatives and n-variable functions, hence the usual definition of partial derivative is clear.

The meaning of the limiting procedure is very simple: on the globally defined manifold $`O`$ we shall make that the variables that describe it tend to the point of the path in some specified way. Of course this can be done in many ways and depends on the topological properties of the manifold. In any simple connected manifold the way in which we get the points of the path should be not important. The most common case of this approximation procedure is the one which answer the question (AA), that is, we approximate the tangent vectors of the path to the vectors given by the vector field of components $`f_i`$.

## 5 Some uses of the formula (16)

.

Let’s show how the formula (16) can be used in differential geometry. For the sake of completeness we shall expose what is commonly considered as the right procedure, and then we shall show that it can be done with our methods, too. Take an abstract manifold $`M`$ of dimension $`N`$ and define over it a path $`p`$. Hence its coordinate representatives are given by:

$$x_1[p(t)],\mathrm{},x_N[p(t)].$$
(17)
The usual goal is to define in an intrinsic manner the tangent vectors, that is, in such a way that they depend on the points of $`M`$ only and not in the space in which $`M`$ is contained. This can be done by defining the tangent vectors in terms of the path $`p`$ in the following way: we define the equivalence class of $`p`$ as

$$(p)=_{\mathrm{def}}\left\{p^{}\right|\frac{dx_i[p(t)]}{dt}|_{t=0}=\frac{dx_i[p^{}(t)]}{dt}|_{t=0}\},$$
(18)
in words: a path $`p`$ is equivalent to a path $`p^{}`$ if and only if at the common point $`p(0)=p^{}(0)`$ they have the same tangent vector. With this definition it is a usual matter to prove that the directional derivative of the path, directed along the tangent vectors is independent of the selected path. To do this it is necessary to use the chain rule to write down the following two expressions:

$$\frac{df[p(t)]}{dt}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{f}{x_i}\frac{dx_i[p(t)]}{dt}\mathrm{and}\frac{df[p^{}(t)]}{dt}=\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}\frac{f}{x_i}\frac{dx_i[p^{}(t)]}{dt}.$$
(19)
We can see that in the limit $`t0`$ both expressions are the same, hence the derivative is independent of the underlying path. If we remember the argument (B) we cannot write equations (19), hence, we must use the correct expressions. For that, we take two paths which have only one common point, hence we have two functions $`g`$ and $`g^{}`$ equal in at least one point. The expression at the right of (16) under the sign of limit does not depend on the path, and thus remains the same, however the limit change because the process of approximation must be done considering two different paths, hence we write:

$$\frac{dg(t)}{dt}=\underset{xp}{lim}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_i\frac{f}{x_i}\mathrm{and}\frac{dg^{}(t)}{dt}=\underset{xp^{}}{lim}\underset{i=1}{\overset{N}{}}V_i\frac{f}{x_i}.$$
(20)
If we suppose that the tangents to the paths tend to the vector field V we can write down the right hand sides of (20) as the right hand sides of (19). But this is equivalent to writing down:

$$\frac{dx_i[p(t)]}{dt}=V_i\{𝐱[p(t)]\}\mathrm{and}\frac{dx_i[p^{}(t)]}{dt}=V_i\{𝐱[p^{}(t)]\}.$$
(21)
Now, if we suppose that as our initial value we have $`p(0)=p^{}(0)=p_0`$ we shall get the same path by invoking the usual theorems. Hence the underlying paths are not important and our process is well defined over the equivalence classes. But we have a bonus, when we cannot use the equations (21), which is the case when our limiting procedure does not converge to the tangent vectors, that is, when we cannot find a 1-dimensional foliation of the manifold by 1-dimensional integral paths of the vector field, we can express this condition in a quite simple manner

$$\underset{xp}{lim}V_i(x_1,\mathrm{},x_N)\frac{dx_i}{dt}$$
(22)
Which, of course, makes the integrability a part of the topological properties of the manifold.

## 6 On the integrability concept

The notion of integrability which we have reached in the previous section must be compared with the most usual notion based on cross differentiation, that is, the generation of a Lie algebra structure for the generators of a distribution E of vector spaces along any manifold. For the case of differential 1-forms the conclusions about integrability can be obtained with the use of its associated complex, the De Rham complex, where the integrability condition of a differential 1-form $`w`$ can be expressed with the notation: $`dw0`$ because if it is zero, by the use of the usual local Poincare’s lemma we get a local integral $`f`$ of the form $`w=df`$. Another way to express the same condition is with the use of the integral invariants of Cartan. For the case of differential 1-forms we have that, if $`f`$ is such a scalar invariant, hence the distribution of vector fields $`𝐄`$ along the space is such that: $`𝐄\mathrm{𝙺𝚎𝚛}(df)`$ . If we use $`n`$-forms, $`\phi `$, the condition is $`𝐄\mathrm{𝙺𝚎𝚛}(\phi )\mathrm{𝙺𝚎𝚛}(d\phi )`$ (Hence the $`n`$-form is an integral invariant of Cartan).

However this notion is based on one idea: the cross differentiation of expressions like the functions at the right hand side of (13) process which we have showed to be meaningless because we don’t have a way to compute it. But with the development of the free coordinate tensor formalism many things were left aside, and it was possible to express the conditions in free coordinate terms which avoid the explicit use of operations like the usual total differentiation. In this sense, we believe that in the free coordinate tensor formalism such problems like the one treated in this note cannot be found, except in the cases in which the total derivatives appear. Coming back to the notion of integrability, even in the tensor formalism it is based on the idea of Lie algebra, which is a formal reconstruction of the idea of cross differentiation, but the notion of integrability given by the equation (22) is not based on this notion as a primitive notion, instead it is based on the idea of appropriation to a given curve as a primitive concept.

## 7 Summary and discussion

The brief treatment given here suggests that a profound, case by case, investigation of the uses of the formalism introduced in differential geometry and topology is necessary. However, probably the usual tools must be complemented with a critical view of the subject involved, because our representations of the underlying processes may not be the same and this is the origin of the ignorance of the problem. Really, the problem arises in the language, not in the usual formalism, because we take seriously the idea that a partial derivative can be defined only when all the variables are constants except one. Trying to respect this definition is the source of everything. This definition defines two syntactical rules of the form:

$$d/dt:C(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^m)C(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^m);/q:C(\mathrm{}^n,\mathrm{}^m)C(\mathrm{}^n,\mathrm{}^m)$$
(23)
one for each operator. The functor $`C`$ should be taken as adequate for each case. The syntactical rules are, of course, that the symbol $`d/dt`$ can only operate when the set represented by $`\mathrm{}`$ doesn’t appear as a cartesian product, that is, its exponent can be only 1, which means 1-variable function. For the operator of partial differentiation, the set must have a cartesian exponent different from 0 and 1, that is, we consider only $`n`$-variable functions $`(n0,1)`$. Hence, if we look more closely at the equation $`g=Ep`$ we can write down the sequence: $`\mathrm{}\mathrm{}^n\mathrm{}^n`$ which shows that any derivative of the function $`g`$ must be a $`d/dt`$. The composition operation is of the syntactical form:

$$:C(\mathrm{}^n,\mathrm{}^m)\times C(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^n)C(\mathrm{},\mathrm{}^m),$$
(24)
which shows that its action produces a 1-variable function. Usually this kind of rule is not taken into account, and people proceed with heuristic arguments based on one or other representation of the subject, of even without representation just by operating on the symbols. This is not really wrong, or at least that is our opinion. However, if one tries to take the propositions seriously a moment of reflection over our own concepts and the use which we made of them is necessary. This is the heart of our attempt in this note.

The consistency of mathematical analysis it is the mayor problem which motivated the new approaches. See, for example, very interesting paper by K. Brownstein , although we criticize some aspects of this work. After our paper has been already submitted to this Journal we have discovered a brilliant work by R.M. Santilli “Nonlocal-integral isotopies of differential calculus, mechanics and geometries”  where the author settles a new approach to differential calculus (see, e.g.,  p. 19, 1.5“Isodifferential calculus”).

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Prof. Valeri Dvoeglazov for his discussions and critical comments. We would also like to thank Annamaria D’Amore for revising the manuscript. One of the authors (RAF) is in debt with the Centro de Estudios Multidisciplinarios and specially with its director Ing. Rogelio Cardenas Hernandez for his constant support.


format: text

text:
# The True Incidence of Magnetism Among Field White Dwarfs

## 1 Introduction

For three decades it has been known that a small minority of white dwarfs (WDs) have detectable magnetic fields, but the percentage has remained somewhat uncertain. Angel, Borra, & Landstreet (1981) summarized the early surveys with the statement: “We find that BP(B), the probability per octave, is roughly constant at 0.005 for fields in the range 3$`\times `$106 G to 3$`\times `$108 G, and does not exceed this value down to 106 G.” Below 3$`\times `$106 G they noted that more precise longitudinal polarization measurements were necessary to detect magnetism.

With the introduction of CCD detectors more than a decade ago, surface field strengths well below 106 G were accessed for the first time. Schmidt & Smith (1994, 1995) reported results from extensive surveys using a polarimeter and spectropolarimeter. In the first reference, they concluded “The overall incidence of magnetism among white dwarfs remains low, with more than 90% of stars having fields below $``$10 kG\[kilogauss\].” In the second reference they stated “The incidence of magnetism among white dwarfs is found to be $`4.0\pm `$1.5% for fields between 3$`\times `$104 and 109 G.”

In their comprehensive review paper describing the properties of the 65 magnetic white dwarfs (MWDs) then known, Wickramasinghe & Ferrario (2000, hereafter WF00) had this summary statement: “The isolated MWDs comprise $``$5% of all WDs.” Such modest fractional estimates have led several authors, perhaps beginning with Angel et al. (1981) and later WF00, to hypothesize that the MWDs are the progeny of the peculiar A-B stars, the only main sequence stars known to have formed with “fossil” magnetic fields emanating from the stellar cores.

Evidence that the incidence of magnetism could be higher at least for particular kinds of WDs has also been noted. For example, WF00 noted that about 25% of known cataclysmic variables harbor MWDs as primaries, but they discuss selection effects in favor of discovery of, for example, the more X-ray luminous AM Herculis and DQ Herculis accreting MWD systems. Hence, it remains uncertain whether the fraction of MWDs is really higher for a true, volume-limited sample of CVs vs. the isolated WDs.

Vennes (1999) found that the fraction of MWDs is higher (about 25%) among stars with masses exceeding 1 $`M_{}`$ in his Extreme Ultraviolet Explorer (EUVE) sample of hot white dwarfs. This is consistent with studies of individual cooler stars (e.g., Greenstein & Oke 1982; Liebert 1988) that many of the known MWDs have quite high masses (see also the discussion by WF00).

Liebert & Sion (1978) noted decades ago that the magnetic field discovery fraction for isolated WDs was higher for the cooler than for the hotter WDs. It should also be noted that the cooler stars are generally nearer to the Sun than are the hotter WDs found in UV-excess or blue color surveys. Fabrika & Valyavin (1999) studied published results and conclude that the frequency of magnetism among hot WDs is $`3.5\pm 0.5`$%, but $`20\pm 5`$% for white dwarfs cooler than 10,000 K. They note that most of the known cool MWDs are within a distance of 25 pc. Holberg, Oswalt, & Sion (2002) tabulated and studied the sample of known white dwarfs within 20 pc distance. Kawka et al. (2002) already have noted that the percentage of MWDs in this sample exceeds 10%; this volume-limited sample is of course dominated by cool WDs.

Theoretical expectation, however, is that fossil magnetic fields in WDs should not increase in strength, but rather should decay slowly (cf. Fontaine, Thomas, & Van Horn 1973; see, however, Valyavin & Fabrika 1999 for a different perspective). It must be admitted, in any case, that different discovery techniques and biases are involved in the discovery of hot and cool WDs. WF00 concluded that there is no convincing evidence that the mean magnetic field strength varies with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, but they did not comment on the incidence of detected magnetism.

One problem has been that existing data sets are quite heterogeneous, represent different WD discovery techniques, and varying precision in the search for magnetism. In this paper we revisit these questions, beginning first in Section 2 with new statistics for three large and well-studied samples of cool and hot white dwarfs now available. In Section 3, we attempt to sort out the sources of the apparently- conflicting results, to reach a more robust conclusion about the true fraction of MWDs, and whether it changes as the white dwarfs cool.

## 2 Comparison of Hot, Cool and Nearby White Dwarf Samples

### 2.1 Hot White Dwarfs from the Palomar Green (PG) Survey

Liebert et al. (2003) have been finishing a detailed study of 324 DA white dwarfs from the PG with $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ above about 10,000 K including high signal-to-noise ratio optical CCD spectra covering all Balmer lines except H$`\alpha `$. The technique of simultaneous line-fitting for the determination of $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, surface gravity ($`\mathrm{log}g`$), combined with the use of evolutionary tracks to determine the mass, radius and the cooling time, is now well-established (cf. Bergeron, Saffer, & Liebert 1992). Except for the very hottest objects (perhaps T$`{}_{eff}{}^{}`$ 50,000 K or even higher), the precise measurement of line profiles makes possible the discovery of any magnetic fields down to a limit of $``$2 megagauss (MG), below which clean Zeeman-splitting of H I and He I does not occur. It is possible that careful measurements of the positions of the high Balmer lines could detect quadratic Zeeman shifts to significantly lower field strengths (Preston 1970), but our more conservative assessment here is to assume that this has not been done systematically with the spectra. Seven DA MWDs have been found from this sample, and these are listed in order of decreasing surface field strength in Table 1.

Some comments on individual objects are in order. For the parameters of PG 2329+267, we favor the fitted values from Bergeron, Leggett & Ruiz (2001, hereafter BLR – see next section) over the rough mass estimate of 0.9 $`M_{}`$ based on inspection of spectra by Moran, Marsh, & Dhillon (1998). Revised parameter estimates from our study are listed for PG 1220+234, and the fit to the spectrum is shown as Figure 1. A temperature of 14,000 K has been assumed for PG 1015+015, based on the spectrum fit of Wickramasinghe & Cropper (1998). This star has too strong a field for the line profile-fitting to yield an estimate of the surface gravity. However, an unpublished trigonometric parallax for this star allows a rough mass estimate of 1.15 $`M_{}`$.

Similar studies cover 24 PG DB white dwarfs by Beauchamp (1996) and include eight PG DO stars by Dreizler & Werner (1996). One magnetic PG DB star was found from spectropolarimetric observations (Putney 1997, Wesemael et al. 2001); it is also listed in the table. At an estimated polar field strength of 1 MG, however, its field was not detected in the spectrophotomeric study. Finally, the table includes two magnetic stars cooler than 10,000 K – G195$``$19 and G128$``$72 – whose fields were detected in other studies, but also included in the PG survey. The catalog included 22 other DC white dwarfs, two DZ, and eight cool DA white dwarfs in the survey for which modern spectra may not be available. Since the stars cooler than 10,000 K are not part of the comprehensive spectrophotometric data set, they are not included in the assessment of the magnetic frequency of the hot PG stars. However, both G195$``$19 and G128$``$72 are included in the cool star sample discussed next.

The bottom line is that only seven MWDs with field strengths $``$2 MG were found from 356 well-observed stars, or $`2.0\pm 0.8`$%. Despite the homogeneous spectrophotometric studies, it should be noted that no special polarimetric or spectropolarimetric study has focussed on the PG sample, though PG 0853+164 (LB 8827) happened to be targetted.

Another interesting property of the PG subset of MWDs is the distribution in mass, a parameter available for all but one with $``$2 MG field strengths (but we do include the two cooler magnetic stars). The mean mass is 0.93 $`M_{}`$, compared with a value near 0.58 $`M_{}`$ for the hot DA (Liebert et al. 2003, in preparation) and DB samples (Beauchamp 1996). We shall discuss the implications of these values in Section 3.

### 2.2 Cool White Dwarfs

Extensive studies of known cool white dwarfs have been published by Bergeron, Ruiz, & Leggett (1997, hereafter BRL) and BLR. BRL included 111 white dwarfs cooler than about 10,000 K, but selection emphasized non-DA spectral types at the expense of DAs. BLR studied 152 cool white dwarfs of all spectral types which had published, accurate trigonometric parallaxes from which luminosities, masses and radii (in addition to $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$) could be estimated. All but a few have $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ estimates below 10,000 K. There is considerable overlap in these two samples, so they are combined in our analysis, a total of 199 individual WDs (hereafter, the BRL sample).

The MWDs found in the BRL sample are listed in Table 2. Before further discussion, a few corrections to the tabulation of WF00 need to be noted. The spectrophotometric discovery of magnetism in GD 175 (1503$``$070) was reported in BLR, and was not available for WF00. However, there are four stars from the BRL sample listed in WF00 which we do not believe to be magnetic. G141$``$2 (1818+126) and G227$``$28 (1820+609) were shown by Putney (1997) not to have detectable circular polarization. The same conclusion for ESO 439$``$162 (1127$``$311A) was reached by Schmidt, Bergeron, & Fegley (1995); WF00 considered it to be a possible MWD.

Finally, there is the case of LHS 1008 (0000$``$345). Based on what was reported to be a 5-minute exposure at the ESO 1.5-m telescope, Reimers et al. (1996) reported a “complex H$`\beta `$” feature near 4650 Å, and fitted a model with H$`\alpha `$ Zeeman splittings. This resulted in an estimated field strength of 86 MG. This value is listed in WF00. Our spectrophotometry, obtained with the CTIO 4-m Blanco reflector, was analyzed in BRL. This showed a DC spectrum, with no features at 4650 Å or H$`\alpha `$. Even stronger evidence that the star exhibits no magnetic field was provided by the spectropolarimetric analysis of Schmidt et al. (2001), which also shows that the spectrum is cleanly DC. We thus exclude this object from further consideration as a MWD.

The BRL sample yields a fractional incidence of 14/199 or $`7.0\pm 2`$% of MWDs with field strengths $``$2 MG, formally more than three times the fraction found for the PG sample. This does not include the three stars listed in Table 2 with lower or uncertain field strengths.

Mass estimates are available for all but two $``$2 MG MWDs (Table 2). The mean mass is 0.68 $`M_{}`$. However, these mass estimates are based on a different method than the direct determinations of the surface gravity. BRL and BLR estimated masses by fitting the absolute magnitudes derived from available trigonometric parallaxes. The evidence is mounting, however, that a fraction of WDs exceeding 10% may be unresolved binaries (Napiwotzki et al. 2002), and the apparent magnitude difference of the components may be expected to grow smaller as the stars cool. If the fitted luminosity is due to two, rather than one star, the inferred mass of the “single” star may be underestimated drastically, as noted in both BRL and BLR. It is therefore possible that double degenerates in these samples have skewed the mean mass estimate downwards. Moreover, the lack of precision of this method of estimating masses may smear out the expected peak of the mass distribution near 0.6 $`M_{}`$, the mean found for samples analyzed by the gravity-fitting method (e.g., Bergeron, Saffer, & Liebert 1992).

In fact there are three definite or possible binaries for which one component is a low mass MWD of DA type. G62$``$46 was shown to be composite spectrum object consisting of the DA “b” component whose parameters are listed in Table 2, with a warmer, more massive DC “a” component (Bergeron, Ruiz, & Leggett 1993). The main reason for invoking a binary hypothesis is that the H$`\alpha `$ Zeeman absorption components are too weak for a DA of the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ derived by fitting the energy distribution under the assumption that the flux is from a single star. These authors discussed the possibility that LHS 2273, which also exhibits H$`\alpha `$ components too weak for the energy distribution, could be decomposed into a binary with similar properties (however, the parameters listed in Table 2 are taken from the single WD fit in BRL). The third such candidate is LHS 1734, an apparently-single magnetic DA of similar $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ to the other two DA components, but for which the parallax (luminosity) requires the assignment of a very low mass of 0.32 $`M_{}`$. Such low mass WDs should never have reached the required mass for core helium ignition, and should be composed of helium interiors. It is difficult to understand the evolution to the helium white dwarf stage within the lifetime of the Galaxy except to invoke binary mass exchange. LHS 1734 differs from the other two in that the H$`\alpha `$ line strengths are in agreement with the 5300 K fit to the energy distribution. That is, any companion that we argue must have engaged earlier in close-binary mass exchange must not be contributing significant light at red wavelengths.

That three of these 14 MWDS have such low masses may certainly skew the mean mass of the BRL sample. Apparently, magnetic white dwarfs may form in binary evolution in a different manner than for single stars, and in particular may have very different mean masses. It is also curious that all have temperatures around 5-6000 K, as was discussed earlier in BRL. Such binaries involving a low-mass MWD for whatever reason appear not to be represented in the PG sample (although low-mass non-magnetic DAs are certainly present there). Without the two known binaries, the mean mass of the MWDS in the BRL sample is 0.76 $`M_{}`$.

### 2.3 The Local Sample

As noted earlier, Holberg et al. (2002) tabulated 107 known WDs whose best distance estimates indicate that they are within 20 parsecs. Since two of these have been determined to be binary white dwarfs for which we list parameters of the individual components, our sample consists of 109 stars. Unlike the two samples considered previously, this sample lacks a homogeneous spectrophotometric data set, although a majority are in the BLR sample. These authors argue that the sample is complete for the 46 stars out to a distance of 13 parsecs, though the completeness falls to 65% at 20 pc. For reasons discussed in the previous section, we exclude LHS 1008 and G227$``$28 from the subset of local MWDs, which are listed in Table 3. Distance estimates are listed in the last column.

As Kawka et al. (2002) have independently noted, this sample also has a high yield of MWDs. Nine MWDs with field strengths $``$2 MG are listed from the local sample, five with estimated distances within 13 pc. The fractions are 5/45 or $`11\pm 5`$% (13 pc) and 9/109 or $`8\pm 3`$% from the local sample out to 20 pc. Not included in the statistics are two stars within 13 pc with weaker field strength estimates from Schmidt & Smith (1995). The local MWD sample is almost a subset of the BRL sample – all but G256$``$7 (1309+853) were analyzed in those studies.

Mass estimates are available for all but two MWDs from the local sample with field strengths $``$ 2 MG. The mean is 0.80 $`M_{}`$. Since the mass estimates are again derived from trigonometric parallaxes and not spectroscopic measurements of the surface gravity, this value is subject to skewing by any unresolved binaries, as discussed in the previous subsection. However, there is no direct evidence that any of the MWDs are in binary systems.

## 3 Discussion

### 3.1 Correcting for the radius bias

How are these apparently-conflicting results concerning the incidence of WD magnetism to be reconciled? We believe that the answer lies first in considering the high mean masses found for MWDs in all three samples considered here (omitting the known binaries in BRL). These results are consistent at least qualitatively with the large fraction of massive, EUV-selected white dwarfs reported by Marsh et al. (1997) and Vennes (1999).

Since the PG Survey is explicitly magnitude-limited (approximately to $`B=16.2`$), it could be subject to a large bias against the inclusion of MWDs. As already noted by Liebert & Bergeron (1994), the survey limiting distance is proportional to the stellar radius ($`R`$), and hence the survey volume for a given mass scales as $`R^3`$. Thus the fractional incidence of MWDs could be substantially smaller in the PG Survey than in a true, volume-limited sample. Other hot white dwarf surveys (i.e. the Hamburg Schmidt) must be vulnerable to the same bias, as is the magnitude-limited polarimetric survey of Schmidt & Smith (1995). Ironically, similar EUV/X-ray magnitude limits apply to EUVE and ROSAT detections, making the discoveries of many massive, magnetic WDs by Vennes (1999) and Marsh et al. (1997) all the more remarkable. The greater likelihood that massive WDs would have close to pure-hydrogen atmospheres – and correspondingly less EUV/soft X-ray opacities due to helium and heavier elements – may offset the radius bias.

With the samples of “local” white dwarfs, the radius bias is more difficult to quantify even if we knew the underlying mass distributions of WDs and MWDs. Since they are not explicitly magnitude-limited, the bias is likely to be less important. Note that Holberg et al. (2002) claim a complete sample to 13 pc. The considerably-overlapping BLR sample probably is also closer to volume-limited than is the PG.

If one does have a complete sample to a given limiting magnitude, as we argue for the PG, one could correct for the difference in search volume for the MWDs if one knew their true distribution in mass. However, we do not know this distribution. Arguably, the PG MWD mass determinations are more accurate, since they are not subject to the binary bias.

To estimate the potential magnitude of the mass-bias on the MWD fractional incidence in the PG Survey, let us perform the following exercise: Assume that the true MWD distribution has the estimated mean mass of 0.93 $`M_{}`$, and that it otherwise has the same “shape” as the non-magnetic mass distribution. The typical PG star at the mass distribution peak of 0.58 $`M_{}`$ (and $``$25,000 K) has a radius of 0.0144 $`R_{}`$, compared with 0.0091 $`R_{}`$ for a mass of 0.98 $`M_{}`$. To estimate their representation within a fixed search volume, each star should be assigned a weight proportional to $`R^3`$. This ratio leads to a properly-weighted relative fraction of MWDs of 2.0$`\pm `$0.8 $`\times `$ (0.0144/0.0091)3 = 7.9$`\pm `$3%.

This exercise brings the MWD fraction of the PG into better agreement with the cool and nearby WD samples, although it necessarily has substantial errors due to the small, intrinsic number of MWDs. However, there may still be uncorrected bias. The mean mass of MWDs in the PG could be biased downwards from a true mean mass, since a massive MWD has less chance to be part of the survey than a lower mass MWD in the first place. Thus the relative fraction MWDs may be significantly higher still, perhaps approaching 10%. Finally, there is also no rigorous way of correcting this fraction upwards for the MWDs with field strengths below $``$2 MG, which generally require spectropolarimetric observations.

### 3.2 Is there evidence for evolution in the incidence of large fields?

The exercise of the previous paragraphs suggests that there may be no significant difference between the fractional incidence of MWDs between the hot and cool samples of WDs, once the greater correction for bias in the magnitude-limited PG is allowed for. This would enable us to retain the simpler working hypothesis that the incidence of MWDs or mean magnetic field strengths do not increase as the WDs cool. It is not surprising that the majority of the local sample are cool WDs. Arguably, Liebert & Sion (1978) were simply detecting the greater MWD frequency of the more volume-complete sample of solar WD neighbors, as do Holberg, Oswalt, & Sion (2002). However, one final test is possible: if the local WD sample is close to being complete, is there any significant difference between the $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ distribution of the MWDs vs the sample as a whole?

To perform this test, we have collected $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ and mass estimates for nearly all of the local sample, although we concede that this may not be complete for stars more distant than 13 pc. Excellent parameters are available for the majority (63) which were analyzed in BLR. Parameters for several more stars were found in Bergeron et al. (1990), Bergeron et al. (1992), Bergeron, Liebert, & Fulbright (1995a), Bragaglia, Renzini, & Bergeron (1995), Bergeron et al. (1995c), Holberg et al. (1998), Koester et al. (2001), Provencal et al. (2002), and also from a sample of DA spectra kindly made available to us by C. Moran (private communication) and analyzed by us. Temperatures for two stars were also taken from BRL but with no mass estimate. This left 12 stars out of 108 without parameter estimates. For these, we estimated the temperatures based on the published color indices from the McCook & Sion (1999) catalog and the photometric calibration of Bergeron, Wesemael, & Beauchamp (1995b); no mass estimates are possible for these. Finally, two stars remain without even sufficient information for McCook & Sion (1999) to have estimated a subtype. These are omitted from this exercise.

In Figure 2 we plot the estimated $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ values vs. mass for the local sample. Stars with no mass estimate, generally those whose $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$ is taken from the spectral subtype, are plotted at the bottom (at mass of 0.1). Eleven of the 69 stars (16$`\pm `$5%) cooler than 8,000 K are magnetic, while only one of 32 WDs (3$`\pm `$3%) hotter than this temperature is a MWD. This is therefore only about a two sigma difference. For the majority with mass estimates, we also can evaluate the fraction vs. evolution time, and the isochrones are displayed in the figure. Only one MWD (Grw+70o 8247) has a cooling time less than 1 Gyr, and only just barely. While the sample is relatively small, the radius bias of the apparent-magnitude limited samples may not be the whole story. We acknowledge the possibility that an unknown physical mechanism causes the fractional incidence of MWDs to increase with decreasing $`T_{\mathrm{eff}}`$, luminosity and/or cooling age. Two possible causes are discussed briefly in Valyavin & Fabrika (1999), who presented similar arguments about observed samples of WDs.

The total fraction of MWDs will increase more if precise spectropolarimetric analyses capable of detecting fields down to $``$10 kG are applied to samples like these. Precise observations need to be applied to a larger, complete sample of WDs at all temperatures and cooling ages. Finally, we note that the hypothesized origin of MWDs from peculiar (Ap) stars may have to be reevaluated. Kawka et al. (2002) explore this possibility, suggesting that normal main sequence stars with low fields may also be required to provide enough progenitors.

This work was supported in part by the NSERC Canada and by the Fund NATEQ (Québec). We thank Tom Marsh for the suggestion to revisit this issue with the PG sample. We thank the referee, John Landstreet, for useful comments and suggestions.