Cauchy-Euler Equation: Derivatives with Respect to x and t

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter HAL10000
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Cauchy-Euler equation and the derivatives with respect to the variables x and t. Participants explore the relationships between these derivatives, the reasoning behind certain derivations, and the notation used in differentiation.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion about the derivative with respect to x of the term dy/dt, questioning why it is represented as d²y/dx² * dt/dx.
  • Another participant suggests that taking the derivative of dy/dt should yield d²y/dtdx, but notes that the book uses d²y/dt² * dt/dx instead, pondering if they are equivalent.
  • A participant explains that the method used in the book involves dt/dx being equal to 1/x, which allows for factoring out 1/x², thus canceling coefficients in the second-order differential equation.
  • There is a discussion about whether the coefficients in the equation are inverse powers (1/x², 1/x) or if they could be more intuitively represented as x², x, etc.
  • One participant shares their derivation of the Cauchy-Euler equation, indicating uncertainty about its relevance to the discussion.
  • Another participant acknowledges a misunderstanding regarding differentiation notation, clarifying their approach to the relationship between x and t.
  • There is a correction regarding the use of dt/dx versus dx/dt in the derivation, with participants clarifying their respective definitions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the notation and methods used in deriving the Cauchy-Euler equation, indicating that there is no consensus on the best approach or representation of the derivatives involved.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential confusion stemming from differentiation notation and the assumptions underlying the relationships between the variables x and t. There are unresolved questions regarding the equivalence of different derivative representations.

HAL10000
Messages
21
Reaction score
0
Let x=e^t. Then, assuming x>0, we have t=ln(x) and

[itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex]=[itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex]*[itex]\frac{dt}{dx}[/itex] = [itex]\frac{1}{x}[/itex]*[itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex],

[itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dx^{2}}[/itex]= [itex]\frac{1}{x}[/itex]*([itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dx^{2}}[/itex]*[itex]\frac{dt}{dx}[/itex]) - [itex]\frac{1}{x^{2}}[/itex]*[itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex] = [itex]\frac{1}{x^{2}}[/itex]*([itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dt^{2}}[/itex]-[itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex])

I don't understand why the derivative with respect to x of [itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex] is [itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dx^{2}}[/itex]*[itex]\frac{dt}{dx}[/itex]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I might have just explained it to myself... or not...

What you would really get by taking the derivative of [itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex] is [itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dtdx}[/itex] but the book wrote [itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dt^{2}}[/itex]*[itex]\frac{dt}{dx}[/itex] instead... which is really the same thing?
 
HAL10000 said:
I might have just explained it to myself... or not...

What you would really get by taking the derivative of [itex]\frac{dy}{dt}[/itex] is [itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dtdx}[/itex] but the book wrote [itex]\frac{d^{2}y}{dt^{2}}[/itex]*[itex]\frac{dt}{dx}[/itex] instead... which is really the same thing?

I'm a bit confused as to why your book would even derive the Cauchy-Euler equation using that method at all.
 
they use this method because dt/dx is 1/x... this times 1/x allows you to factor out a 1/x^2... which cancels out the coefficient in the first term of the second order D.E. when you substitute it into the original equation... and the same idea works for all terms, cancelling out the coefficients.
 
HAL10000 said:
they use this method because dt/dx is 1/x... this times 1/x allows you to factor out a 1/x^2... which cancels out the coefficient in the first term of the second order D.E. when you substitute it into the original equation... and the same idea works for all terms, cancelling out the coefficients.

Right, but are you implying that the coefficients are inverse powers (1/x^2, 1/x)? Because there's a much more intuitive derivation if it's just x^2, x, etc..
 
Yeah, they are x^2 and x, that's why they cancel
 
I don't like using the math type on these sites, so I just wrote it out and scanned it. Here's the derivation I've used for the Cauchy-Euler equation. Again, not sure this is what you're looking for, but let's see if it helps.
 

Attachments

  • cauchy-euler.jpg
    cauchy-euler.jpg
    31 KB · Views: 460
This one's a little different from my book but it uses the same ideas, I think you meant to write 1/x when substituting for the dx/dt.
Thanks, for some reason I have trouble understanding differentiation notation, that was my only problem. Now it's clear.
 
HAL10000 said:
This one's a little different from my book but it uses the same ideas, I think you meant to write 1/x when substituting for the dx/dt.
Thanks, for some reason I have trouble understanding differentiation notation, that was my only problem. Now it's clear.

No, you're doing dt/dx, which isn't necessary in the derivation I used.

I think this is what you mean:
t=ln(x)
dt/dx=1/x

But this is what I mean:
x=e^t
dx/dt=e^t=x (by the definition above)
 
  • #10
My bad! makes sense now :) thank you
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
4K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K