The Euler–Lagrange equation
Statement
Let be a twice continuously differentiable function on with fixed endpoint values , . If extremizes the functional among all such curves, then satisfies for every .
Why is it true?
This mirrors setting an ordinary derivative to zero at a minimum, but here the 'direction' we perturb in is not a single number but an entire admissible variation of the curve. Requiring the first-order change to vanish for every such variation forces the pointwise balance between the direct -dependence of and the -dependence, encoded exactly by this equation.
Proof sketch
Fix an arbitrary smooth function with , and consider the one-parameter family of competitor curves , all of which share the same endpoint values as . Define ; since is assumed to extremize , the ordinary function has a critical point at , so .
Differentiating under the integral sign, , where the partial derivatives of are evaluated along . Setting gives .
Integrate the second term by parts: . The boundary term vanishes because , leaving .
This integral vanishes for every admissible . By the fundamental lemma of the calculus of variations — if a continuous function integrates to zero against every such test function, the function itself must be identically zero — the bracketed quantity vanishes at every , which is exactly .
Topics that use this theorem
Step-by-step proofs
No step-by-step proof yet for this theorem.
References
- I. M. Gelfand, S. V. Fomin (2000). Calculus of Variations
- Mark Kot (2014). A First Course in the Calculus of Variations
- Camillo De Lellis, Matteo Focardi (2023). The regularity theory for the Mumford-Shah functional on the plane · arXiv:2308.14660 [preprint, not peer-reviewed]