D'Alembert solution with f(x)=0, g(x)=x

  • Thread starter Thread starter yungman
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    D'alembert
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of D'Alembert's solution to the wave equation with specific boundary and initial conditions. The original poster presents a problem involving the wave equation where the initial conditions are defined by f(x)=0 and g(x)=x, and seeks clarification on the steps outlined in a textbook solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to understand the transition between different steps in the solution, particularly how certain expressions are derived and the role of the limits of integration. They pose specific questions regarding the integration process and the use of a constant in the context of the problem.

Discussion Status

Participants are engaging with the original poster's questions, providing insights into the integration process and the properties of the functions involved. Some participants suggest that the original poster may have misinterpreted parts of the solution, while others are exploring the implications of the limits of integration and the choice of constants.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing exploration of the assumptions made in the problem, particularly regarding the choice of limits in the integration and the implications of using specific values in the context of the wave equation. The discussion reflects a lack of consensus on the interpretation of the textbook's approach.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291

Homework Statement



This is an example I copy from the book. The book showed the steps of solving and provide the answer. I don't understand the book at all. Below I show the question and the solution from the book. Then I am going to ask my question at the bottom.


Question
Use D'Alembert method to solve the wave equation with boundary and initial value:

[tex]\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} \;=\; c^2 \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} \;\;,\;\; u(0,t)=u(L,t)=0 \;\;,\;\; u(x,0)=f(x) \;\;,\;\; \frac{\partial u}{\partial t}(x,0)=g(x)[/tex]

Given: f(x)=0 & g(x)=x for 0<x<1. c=1, L=1.

Homework Equations



D'Alembert:
[tex]u(x,t)=\frac{1}{2}[f^*(x-ct)+f^*(x+ct)]+\frac{1}{2c}\int_{x-ct}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds[/tex]

The Attempt at a Solution



f(x) = 0 [tex].\;\;\Rightarrow\; u(x,t)\; =\; \frac{1}{2c}\int_{x-ct}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds \;=\; \frac{1}{2c}[G(x+t) \;-\; G(x-t)][/tex](1)

Where [tex]g^*[/tex] is the odd 2-period extension of g and G is the antiderivative of [tex]g^*.[/tex]

Let .[tex]G(x)=\int_{-1}^x g^*(z)dz[/tex] (2)

To complete the solution, we must determine G. We know G on any interval of length 2. Since [tex]g^*(x)=x[/tex] on the interval (-1,1), we obtain

.[tex]G(x)=\int_{-1}^x g^*(z)dz \;=\; \frac{1}{2}x^2 \;-\; \frac{1}{2}[/tex]. for x in (-1,1) (3). Hence

[tex]G(x) \;=\; \frac{1}{2}x^2 \;-\; \frac{1}{2} \;\;\;if\;-1<x<1[/tex]

[tex]G(x) \;=\; G(x+2) \;\;otherwise.[/tex]



My question:

1) How does it jump from (1) to (3)??

2) Is (2) just the first Fundamental Theorem of Calculus where -1 is the lower limit of x on [-1,1]?

3) Where is (3) come from? How are (x+t) and (x-t) change to x and -1 respectively?

I don't even understand the answer of the book! Can anyone explain to me?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Anybody please?
 
Anyone?
 
I'm not sure about the context but I'll try to answer your questions.

First off, in (1), you seem to have copied down the final expression incorrectly. Your limits of integration at first are x + ct and x - ct, but then the c's have disappeared in the final expression.

(2) is not a theorem, but it's certainly related to the fundamental theorem of calculus. As mentioned in the line above (2), G is simply the antiderivative of g*. In particular, note that

[tex]\frac{1}{2c}\int_{x-ct}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds = \frac{1}{2c}\left(\int_{x-ct}^{-1} g^*(s)ds + \int_{-1}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds\right) = \frac{1}{2c}\left(-\int_{-1}^{x-ct} g^*(s)ds + \int_{-1}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds\right),[/tex]

which follows from basic properties of the integral.
Can you relate (2) and (1) now?

(3) just looks like a definite integral computation of g*(z) = z, nothing too complicated.
 
snipez90 said:
I'm not sure about the context but I'll try to answer your questions.

First off, in (1), you seem to have copied down the final expression incorrectly. Your limits of integration at first are x + ct and x - ct, but then the c's have disappeared in the final expression.

(2) is not a theorem, but it's certainly related to the fundamental theorem of calculus. As mentioned in the line above (2), G is simply the antiderivative of g*. In particular, note that

[tex]\frac{1}{2c}\int_{x-ct}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds = \frac{1}{2c}\left(\int_{x-ct}^{-1} g^*(s)ds + \int_{-1}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds\right) = \frac{1}{2c}\left(-\int_{-1}^{x-ct} g^*(s)ds + \int_{-1}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds\right),[/tex]

which follows from basic properties of the integral.
Can you relate (2) and (1) now?

(3) just looks like a definite integral computation of g*(z) = z, nothing too complicated.

Thanks for your reply.

1) In the question from the book, c=1. Therefore I remove the c and just (x+t) and (x-t).

2) I was playing around on the integration you wrote:

[tex]\frac{1}{2c}\int_{x-ct}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds = \frac{1}{2c}\left(\int_{x-ct}^{-1} g^*(s)ds + \int_{-1}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds\right) = \frac{1}{2c}\left(-\int_{-1}^{x-ct} g^*(s)ds + \int_{-1}^{x+ct} g^*(s)ds\right),[/tex]

Look like it really does not matter where -1 in reference (x+ct) and (x-ct). ei. Whether -1 is on the left of or in between or on the right side
(x+ct) and (x-ct).


3) In fact, looks like I can use any number other than -1. Any number a is as good as other because it get cancel out when adding the two integrations.

4) I continue to work out the problem and this is the answer. Tell me I am right or not.

[tex]\Rightarrow\; u(x,t) \;=\;-\; [\frac{1}{4c} \; s^2|_{-1}^{x-ct} \;\;] \;+\; [\frac{1}{4c} \; s^2|_{-1}^{x+ct} \;\;] \;=\; [\frac{1}{4c} \; [(x+ct)^2 \;-\; (x-ct)^2][/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow\; u(x,t)=\; [\frac{1}{4c} \; (x+ct)^2] \;-\; [\frac{1}{4c} \; [(x-ct)^2][/tex]. Where u(x,t) is two wave travel left and right respectively.

But as you can see from the original post, the book integrate from -1 to x alone. this is shown on (3). I even check another example and the book did the same. I just don't understand this.
The book gave the equation (3). I have double check with the book and I type everything correctly.


Thanks so much of your time.
 
Last edited:
I read more and looked at other examples, seems like the book keep putting -1 as the dummy variable for -1<x<1 and it appear on both side of the traveling wave. Why?
 
Anyone please?
 
No body?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 105 ·
4
Replies
105
Views
11K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K