Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Has anybody got a cleaner solution?

  1. Jun 3, 2012 #1
    Attempting to solve

    dx/dy = x/y - √{1 + (x/y)^2}

    I can substitute x/y = z and get

    ln(y/c) = arcsinh(z) c is constant of integration

    or putting x/y = tan(θ)

    I get

    ln(y/c) = ln(sec(θ) + tan(θ))

    both of which do give a parabola but the interim logs seem so messy and unnecessary.
    Is there a better more direct substitution?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Jun 4, 2012 #2
    Hi !
    Let x = y sinh(t)
    dx/dy = sinh(t) + y cosh(t) (dt/dy)
    which leads to a very simple ODE
     
  4. Jun 4, 2012 #3
    Thanks, JJaquelin - that's certainly a fast and ingenious idea - you still bump into the Sinh(ln()) thingy which I had hoped to avoid - probably I'm too picky.
    The equation arose from asking what curve, symmetric about the x axis, will always reflect back a right-to-left ray, parallel to x axis, through the same point (parabolic reflector - focal point).
     
  5. Jun 4, 2012 #4

    AlephZero

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper

    A trig substitution is the "natural" way to solve this if you formulate the DE using geometry. Putting the fixed point at the origin, the equations for the directon of the reflected ray and the tangent to the curve are

    dy/dx = cot (t/2)
    tan t = y/x
     
  6. Jun 4, 2012 #5
    sinh(ln(c*y)) = (c*y-(1/(c*y))/2
    So, there is no hyperbolic function, nor trigonometric function, in the final result : x = function of y , wich is a very simple parabolic function.
     
  7. Jun 4, 2012 #6
    AlephZero - Right, those were the starting equations & they look so simple - I don't begrudge a log popping up, but when I immediately have to antilog it, intuitively I think "There has to be a more elegant way!"
     
  8. Jun 4, 2012 #7
    JJaquelin - it's the sinh(ln()) that is bugging me! Having to "do and undo" seems redundant - especially because the final expression is the simplest parabola!
     
  9. Jun 4, 2012 #8
    Notice that:
    [tex]
    \mathrm{arcsinh} (x) = \ln \left( x + \sqrt{1 + x^2} \right)
    [/tex]

    Your equation
    [tex]
    \frac{dx}{dy} = \frac{x}{y} - \sqrt{1 + \left( \frac{x}{y} \right)^2}
    [/tex]
    after the substitution
    [tex]
    z = \frac{x}{y}, \ z = z(y)
    [/tex]
    reduces to:
    [tex]
    y \, z' + z = z - \sqrt{1 + z^2}
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    \frac{dz}{\sqrt{1 + z^2}}+ \frac{dy}{y} = 0
    [/tex]
    which integrates to:
    [tex]
    \mathrm{arcsinh}(z) + \ln(y) = C
    [/tex]
    I think you have the realtive sign opposite to this in your solution. Then, use the above representation of the inverse hyperbolic sine, and take the antilogratihm:
    [tex]
    y \, \left( z + \sqrt{1 +z^2} \right) = C_1
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    x + \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} = C_1
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    \sqrt{x^2 + y^2} = C_1 - x
    [/tex]
    Square it:
    [tex]
    x^2 + y^2 = \left(C_1 - x \right)^2
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    x^2 + y^2 = C^{2}_{1} - 2 \, x \, C_1 + x^2
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    x = \frac{C_1}{2} - \frac{y^2}{2 C_1}
    [/tex]
     
  10. Jun 4, 2012 #9
    Another way is to solve it as an implicit equation. Introduce [itex]p = dx/dy[/itex], and [itex]z = x/y[/itex]. Then:
    [tex]
    p = z - \sqrt{1 + z^2}
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    \sqrt{1 + z^2} = z - p
    [/tex]
    Squaring it gives:
    [tex]
    1 + z^2 = z^2 - 2 p z + p^2
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    z = \frac{p^2 - 1}{2 p}
    [/tex]
    or
    [tex]
    x = y \, \frac{p^2 - 1}{2 p}
    [/tex]
    This is an implicit equation of the Lagrange-Clairot type. Differentiate w.r.t. y to get:
    [tex]
    p \, dy = \frac{p^2 - 1}{2 p} \, dy + y \, \frac{2 p \cdot p - (p^2 - 1) \cdot 1}{2 p^2} \, dp
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    \frac{2 p^2 - p^2 + 1}{2 p} \, dy = y \, \frac{2 p^2 - p^2 + 1}{2 p^2} \, dp
    [/tex]
    [tex]
    \frac{d y}{y} = \frac{d p}{p}
    [/tex]
    Integrating this equation gives:
    [tex]
    \ln(p) = \ln(y) + C'_1
    [/tex]
    and taking the antilogarithm gives:
    [tex]
    p = C_1 \, y
    [/tex]
    Substitute this in the parametric solution for x:
    [tex]
    x = y \, \frac{C^{2}_{1} y^2 - 1}{2 \, C_{1} \, y} = \frac{C_1 \, y^2}{2} - \frac{1}{2 \, C_1}
    [/tex]
    which is the same general solution as before if you make the substitution [itex]C_1 \rightarrow -1/C_1[/itex].

    But, there might also be a singular solution to the equation. It is obtained as an envelope of the family of general solutions. Differentiate w.r.t. to the arbitrary constant to get:
    [tex]
    0 = \frac{y^2}{2} + \frac{1}{2 \, C^{2}_{1}}
    [/tex]
    This sum of non-negative terms can only be zero, if each term is equal to zero separately. This corresponds to:
    [tex]
    y = 0, \ C_1 \rightarrow \infty
    [/tex]
    To check whether [itex]y = 0[/itex] is a solution of the original equation, solve it for [itex]y' = dy/dx = (dx/dy)^{-1}[/itex]:
    [tex]
    y' = \frac{1}{x/y - \sqrt{1 + (x/y)^2}} = \frac{y}{x - \mathrm{sgn}(y) \, \sqrt{y^2 + x^2}}
    [/tex]
    One may argue that it is because of the y in the numerator, or that the original equation is not defined for [itex]y = 0[/itex].
     
  11. Jun 4, 2012 #10
    Thanks to everyone for engaging my problem - seems the way below is the least painful but certainly not the most creative (thanks Dickfore, I had to look up Lagrange-Clairot!)

    The original conditions for the mirror profile were:

    dx/dy = -tan(2α) and y/x = tan(α)

    which boils down to

    dx/dy = x/y ± √{1 + (x/y)^2} ... thanks again for the "+" Dickfore, I'll use that.

    using x/y = tan(θ)

    dy/y = sec(θ)dθ ... really simple, huh?

    but then:frown:

    ln(y/C) = ln[tan(θ) + sec(θ)]

    ending up with

    y^2 = 2Cx + C^2 where C/2 is the focal length

    for such a trivial result it seemed messy to go in and out of logs but hey
     
  12. Jun 4, 2012 #11
    correction

    dx/dy = tan(α) and y/x = -tan(2α)

    sorry
     
  13. Jun 5, 2012 #12
    Hi !

    if you know an easier way... :devil:
     

    Attached Files:

  14. Jun 5, 2012 #13
    JJaquelin: It's just that given the chance I prefer trigonometrics to hyperbolicals - but never call me prejudiced - some of my best fiends are quite hyperbolic ...
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook