Solving a Re-arranging Problem: Making r the Subject

  • Thread starter Thread starter lostidentity
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around manipulating the equation \(\frac{dr}{dt} = \Phi - \Psi \frac{2}{r}\frac{dr}{dt}\) to isolate r. The user successfully integrates the equation, resulting in \(r + 2\Psi\ln{r} = \Phi{t} + r_0\), but struggles to make r the subject. A participant suggests that directly isolating r is not feasible unless the left-hand side is defined as a function of r. An alternative solution using the Lambert W function is proposed, yielding \(r = 2 \Psi \text{lambert}\left(\frac{e^{\frac{t\Phi+c}{2 \Psi}}}{2 \Psi}\right)\), which checks out when substituted back into the original ODE. The discussion emphasizes the need for careful verification of the solution.
lostidentity
Messages
16
Reaction score
0
I'm trying integrate the following equation and make r the subject
\frac{dr}{dt} = \Phi - \Psi \frac{2}{r}\frac{dr}{dt}

I first collect the derivative terms together and integrate the equation with respect to r and t to obtain

r + 2\Psi\ln{r} = \Phi{t} + r_0

where r0 is the constant of integration. My question is how would I make r the subject of the above equation?

Many thanks.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
hi lostidentity! :smile:
lostidentity said:
My question is how would I make r the subject of the above equation?

not possible!

(unless you define the LHS to be f(r), in which case it's r = f-1(RHS) :wink:)
 
I'm wondering if there is another way to solve the ODE I gave in the previous post, i.e.

\left(1+2\frac{\Psi}{r}\right)\frac{dr}{dt} = \Phi
 
Last edited:
lostidentity said:
I'm wondering if there is another way to solve the ODE I gave in the previous post, i.e.

\left(1+2\frac{\Psi}{r}\right)\frac{dr}{dt} = \Phi

Check this very very carefully

r = 2 \Psi lambert\left(\frac{e^{\frac{t\Phi+c}{2 \Psi}}}{2 \Psi}\right)

where c is some constant and where lambert gives the principle solution for w in z=w e^w.

When I substitute this back into the original ODE it seems to check, but do not trust this until you have triple checked it.
 
Last edited:
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...

Similar threads

Back
Top