Determining Solution Space for Cauchy Problem ($u_t+xu_x=(x+t)u$)

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter evinda
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Space
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a Cauchy problem defined by the equation $u_t+xu_x=(x+t)u$ with an initial condition $u|_{t=0}=\phi(x)$, where $\phi(x)$ is an arbitrary smooth function. Participants explore the solution space in $\mathbb{R}^2$ defined by the initial condition, examining the implications of the initial intervals for $x$ and how they evolve over time.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that the solution can be expressed as $x(t)=x_0 e^t$ and $u(t,x)=\phi(xe^{-t}) e^{x(1-e^{-t})+\frac{t^2}{2}}$.
  • There is a question regarding how to determine the space in $\mathbb{R}^2$ where the initial condition defines the solution, particularly whether the initial condition holds only at $t=0$.
  • Some participants suggest that from the initial conditions $0 \leq x_0 \leq 1$ and $2 \leq x_0 \leq 3$, the resulting intervals for $x$ at time $t$ can be derived as $0 \leq x \leq e^t$ and $2e^t \leq x \leq 3e^t$.
  • There is a discussion about the notation used to describe the solution space, with some participants expressing concern that the notation $(0,e^t) \cup (2e^t, 3e^t) \times \mathbb{R}$ is only valid for specific values of $t$.
  • Alternatives for expressing the solution space using set builder notation are proposed, such as $\{(x,t)\in \mathbb R^2 \mid x\in [0,e^t]\cup [2e^t,3e^t]\}$.
  • Participants discuss the inclusion of boundaries in the intervals, noting that the original problem statement included boundaries while some proposed notations did not.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the form of the solution but express differing views on how to accurately describe the solution space and the implications of the initial conditions. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the best notation to use for the solution space.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations regarding the clarity of notation and the implications of the intervals defined by the initial conditions. The discussion highlights the need for precise definitions and the potential for misinterpretation based on notation.

evinda
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,741
Reaction score
0
Hello! (Wave)

I want to find the solution of the following Cauchy problem and determine the space in $\mathbb{R}^2$ where the initial condition defines the solution.$$u_t+xu_x=(x+t)u, u|_{t=0}=\phi(x), x \in [0,1] \cup [2,3].$$

($\phi(x)$ arbitrary smooth function)

I have tried the following:

We need to solve the following two problems.

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=x, x|_{t=0}=x_0 \\ \frac{du}{dt}=(x+t)u, u|_{t=0}=\phi(x)$$

We get that $x(t)=x_0 e^t$ and $u(t,x)=\phi(xe^{-t}) e^{x(1-e^{-t})+\frac{t^2}{2}}$.

Am I right?

But how can we determine the space in $\mathbb{R}^2$ where the initial condition defines the solution?The initial condition $x \in [0,1] \cup [2,3]$ given holds for the case when $t=0$, or not?

If so, do we use this condition to find the desired space?

From $0 \leq x_0 \leq 1$ we get that $0 \leq x \leq e^t$ and from $2 \leq x_0 \leq 3$ we get that $2e^t \leq x \leq 3e^t$, right? Does this help? (Thinking)
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
evinda said:
We need to solve the following two problems.

$$\frac{dx}{dt}=x, x|_{t=0}=x_0 \\ \frac{du}{dt}=(x+t)u, u|_{t=0}=\phi(x)$$

We get that $x(t)=x_0 e^t$ and $u(t,x)=\phi(xe^{-t}) e^{x(1-e^{-t})+\frac{t^2}{2}}$.

Am I right?

Hey evinda!

It looks correct to me.
That is, substituting it into the original equation shows that it's a solution.

Btw, how did you get to that solution? (Wondering)
I do not recognize the method.

evinda said:
But how can we determine the space in $\mathbb{R}^2$ where the initial condition defines the solution?

The initial condition $x \in [0,1] \cup [2,3]$ given holds for the case when $t=0$, or not?

If so, do we use this condition to find the desired space?

From $0 \leq x_0 \leq 1$ we get that $0 \leq x \leq e^t$ and from $2 \leq x_0 \leq 3$ we get that $2e^t \leq x \leq 3e^t$, right? Does this help? (Thinking)

The solution for $u(t,x)$ that you have is well-defined iff $\phi(xe^{-t})$ is well-defined.
And you have already found where that is.

Graphing it shows:
[DESMOS]advanced: {"version":5,"graph":{"squareAxes":false,"viewport":{"xmin":-0.25,"ymin":-2.2,"xmax":4.5,"ymax":2.2}},"expressions":{"list":[{"id":"graph1","type":"expression","latex":"0\\le x\\le e^{y}","color":"#2d70b3"},{"id":"2","type":"expression","latex":"2e^{y}\\le x\\le3e^{y}","color":"#2d70b3"}]}}[/DESMOS]

So I believe you already have the solution! (Happy)
 
I like Serena said:
Hey evinda!

It looks correct to me.
That is, substituting it into the original equation shows that it's a solution.

Btw, how did you get to that solution? (Wondering)
I do not recognize the method.

I used the method of characteristics.
I like Serena said:
The solution for $u(t,x)$ that you have is well-defined iff $\phi(xe^{-t})$ is well-defined.
And you have already found where that is.

Graphing it shows:So I believe you already have the solution! (Happy)

So the solution is defined for $(x,t) \in (0,e^t) \cup (2e^t, 3e^t) \times \mathbb{R}$, right? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
I used the method of characteristics.

I see. (Thinking)
Yep. I get the same result.

evinda said:
So the solution is defined for $(x,t) \in (0,e^t) \cup (2e^t, 3e^t) \times \mathbb{R}$, right?

I'm afraid that is bad notation. (Worried)
$(0,e^t) \cup (2e^t, 3e^t) \times \mathbb{R}$ is only a set for a specific $t$.
And if we pick a specific $t$, we get a rectangular set, don't we? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
I'm afraid that is bad notation. (Worried)
$(0,e^t) \cup (2e^t, 3e^t) \times \mathbb{R}$ is only a set for a specific $t$.
And if we pick a specific $t$, we get a rectangular set, don't we? (Wondering)

Ok... But how else could we write down the space ? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
Ok... But how else could we write down the space ?

How about using set builder notation:
$$\{(x,t)\in \mathbb R^2 \mid x\in [0,e^t]\cup [2e^t,3e^t]\}$$
or:
$$\{(x,t)\in \mathbb R^2 \mid 0 \le x \le e^t \ \lor\ 2e^t \le x \le 3e^t\}$$
(Wondering)

Btw, those intervals should include the boundaries, shouldn't they? (Wondering)
 
I like Serena said:
How about using set builder notation:
$$\{(x,t)\in \mathbb R^2 \mid x\in [0,e^t]\cup [2e^t,3e^t]\}$$
or:
$$\{(x,t)\in \mathbb R^2 \mid 0 \le x \le e^t \ \lor\ 2e^t \le x \le 3e^t\}$$
(Wondering)

Ah, I see... (Nod)

I like Serena said:
Btw, those intervals should include the boundaries, shouldn't they? (Wondering)

You mean because I wrote $x\in (0,e^t)\cup (2e^t,3e^t)$ ? (Thinking)
 
evinda said:
You mean because I wrote $x\in (0,e^t)\cup (2e^t,3e^t)$ ?

Yes, that notation explicitly excludes the boundaries.
But in the OP the boundaries were included. (Thinking)
 
I like Serena said:
Yes, that notation explicitly excludes the boundaries.
But in the OP the boundaries were included. (Thinking)

Yes, that's right... Thanks a lot! (Smirk)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K