Can you explain the theory behind separable differential equations?

  • Thread starter Thread starter samwinnick
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Separable Work
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on the theory behind separable differential equations (DEs) and the proper interpretation of derivatives. The user expresses confusion regarding the notation of dy/dx as a fraction and its implications for solving separable DEs, specifically the transformation of the equation into integrable forms. Key points include the distinction between derivatives and differentials, and the importance of understanding the chain rule and substitution rule in calculus. The user concludes that a deeper understanding of differentials will clarify their confusion.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of basic calculus concepts, including derivatives and limits.
  • Familiarity with the chain rule and substitution rule in integration.
  • Knowledge of separable differential equations and their standard form.
  • Concept of differentials and their relationship to derivatives.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties and definitions of differentials in calculus.
  • Learn about the chain rule and its application in differentiating composite functions.
  • Explore the substitution rule for integration and its significance in solving integrals.
  • Practice solving separable differential equations using various techniques.
USEFUL FOR

Students in calculus courses, particularly those studying differential equations, as well as educators looking to clarify the concepts of derivatives and differentials.

samwinnick
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
I'm just starting my DE class, although I've been familiar with separable DEs for a while. Although they're (so far) pretty straight-forward to solve, I don't really understand the theory behind seperable DEs. In calc 1, it was stressed that dy/dx is NOT a fraction that can be "taken apart." Looking at the definition of the derivative, it's clear that you cannot rewrite the limit as one limit divided by another limit, because the denominator would be 0, breaking a limit law. It seems to me that the point of derivatives is that we have this indeterminate 0/0 form that, given the context of the original function, we can solve. It seems to me that separating the limit would be like saying that the dy doesn't depend on the dx. This seems like an "abuse of notation" to me, just like the one often used to "proof" the derivative chain rule. Can somebody please help me clear this up?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
A separable equation is ## \frac {dy} {dx} = f(x)g(y) ##. The trick you are concerned with transforms that as ## \frac {dy} {g(y)} = f(x)dx ## and it is indeed questionable. However, it can be transformed as ## \frac {1} {g(y)} \frac {dy} {dx} = \frac {y'(x)} {g(y(x))} = f(x) ##, and then integrated ## \int \frac {y'(x)} {g(y(x))} dx = \int f(x) dx##. The expression on the left hand side is integrated by substituting ## z = y(x) ##, when it becomes ## \int \frac {dz} {g(z)} ## which is different from the "trick" ## \frac {dy} {g(y)} ## only in notation. That's why the trick works.
 
The derivative is, indeed, not a fraction but it is defined as the limit of a fraction with the result that it has the properties of a fraction: That is if f(y) is a function of y and y= g(x) is a function of x, then we can write f(g(x)) and differentiate with respect to x to get the chain rule: df/dx= (df/dy)(dy/dx). You cannot "prove" that by simply saying "the 'dy's cancel", but you can prove it by going back before the limit, canceling in the "difference quotients" and then taking the limit.

It is in order to use that "fraction property" that differentials are defined in terms of the derivative, usually in a second semester Calculus course. If we have dy/dx= f(x)g(y), where "dy/dx" is the derivative, not a fraction, we can then write dy/g(y)= f(x)dx where "dy" and "dx" are now differentials, not derivatives.
 
Thanks, Voko. That's exactly what I was looking for. Now I just need to refresh myself on the mechanics of the substitution rule...

HallsofIvy, I think you found where the hole in my knowledge is. Both the chain rule and the substitution rule (for integration) are something I've kind of "accepted" up until this point, but differentials are really the source of my problem. I'll go learn about differentials now.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K