A Clarification on the given PDE problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter chwala
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pde
chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
415
TL;DR
see attached.
My interest is on the highlighted part only...my understanding is that one should use simultaneous equation... unless there is another way hence my post query.

1673170162078.png


In my working i have;

##y=\dfrac{2ξ+η}{10}## and ##x=\dfrac{2η-ξ}{10}## giving us;

##x+3y=\dfrac{2η-ξ+6ξ+3η}{10}=\dfrac{5ξ+5η}{10}=\dfrac{ξ+η}{2}## cheers guys.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Why do you always have to question things like this? You have two equations for ## \xi## and ## \eta ## in ## x ## and ## y ## and you want to find two equations for ## x ## and ## y ## in ## \xi## and ## \eta ##: this is simultaneous equations by definition. You should do more thinking for yourself and not constantly seek assurance, this is not the way to develop confident problem solving skills.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Mark44 and MidgetDwarf
@pbuk noted mate :biggrin: :biggrin: ...am slowly developing confidence...the pde's can be intimidating at times...not for the faint of hearts. Cheers...
 
Last edited:
chwala said:
TL;DR Summary: see attached.

My interest is on the highlighted part only...my understanding is that one should use simultaneous equation... unless there is another way hence my post query.

View attachment 319956

I don't think this approach is the best approach to applying the method of characteristics.

Firstly I don't think it extends to non-constant coefficients, and secondly it leads to more complicated airthmetic in finding the integrating factor and solving the transformed PDE than does the approach of setting <br /> x_\xi = -2,\qquad y_\xi = 4 and then choosing x_\eta and y_\eta such that \eta does not appear expressly in the transformed equation, leading to <br /> u_{\xi} + 5u = e^{10\xi + (x_\eta + 3y_\eta)\eta} = e^{10\xi}. This approach also works for non-constant coefficient problems.
 
Thanks @pasmith ...i prefer the integrating factor method shown in the text for the time being... i need to try and study the approach that you are suggesting.
 
Last edited:
I have the equation ##F^x=m\frac {d}{dt}(\gamma v^x)##, where ##\gamma## is the Lorentz factor, and ##x## is a superscript, not an exponent. In my textbook the solution is given as ##\frac {F^x}{m}t=\frac {v^x}{\sqrt {1-v^{x^2}/c^2}}##. What bothers me is, when I separate the variables I get ##\frac {F^x}{m}dt=d(\gamma v^x)##. Can I simply consider ##d(\gamma v^x)## the variable of integration without any further considerations? Can I simply make the substitution ##\gamma v^x = u## and then...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K