How does Jacobian equality relate to partial differential equations?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter psholtz
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Jacobian Pdes
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the relationship between Jacobian equality and partial differential equations (PDEs). The author presents a scenario involving p functions in n variables, where the functions are defined as u_i : ℝ^n → ℝ. The key conclusion is that the Jacobian determinant of the system, represented as |∂u_i/∂x_j|, is zero, indicating linear dependency among the functions. This result stems from the derived linear system of PDEs, confirming that the system is not invertible due to the determinant being zero.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial differential equations (PDEs)
  • Familiarity with Jacobian matrices and determinants
  • Basic knowledge of linear algebra concepts
  • Experience with multivariable calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Jacobian matrices in multivariable calculus
  • Explore the implications of linear dependency in systems of equations
  • Learn about the method of characteristics for solving PDEs
  • Investigate the relationship between PDEs and their corresponding linear systems
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those focused on differential equations, applied mathematics, and theoretical physics, will benefit from this discussion.

psholtz
Messages
133
Reaction score
0
I'm reading a text on PDEs..

I'm trying to follow some of the argument the author is presenting, but I'm having a bit of difficulty.

We start w/ a collection of p functions in n variables (with p <= n). That is to say, we have:

u_1, u_2, ..., u_p

where

u_i : \mathbb{R}^n \rightarrow \mathbb{R}

for all i, where 1 &lt;= i &lt;= p.

We now take another function \Phi in p variables, and we write:

\Phi(u_1,u_2,...,u_p) = 0

Since \Phi is ultimately a function in the n variables x(i), we can generate a set of p <= n (partial) differential equations by taking the derivatives of \Phi with respect to p of the x(i). That is, we can write:

\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial u_1} \cdot \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_1} + ... + \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial u_p} \cdot \frac{\partial u_p}{\partial x_1} = 0

...

\frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial u_1} \cdot \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_p} + ... + \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial u_p} \cdot \frac{\partial u_p}{\partial x_p} = 0

So far, so good.. That much I follow.

Next, the author states simply that from this, we can conclude that the Jacobian is null, that is, we can conclude that:

\left| \begin{array}{ccc} <br /> \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_1} &amp; ... &amp; \frac{\partial u_p}{\partial x_1} \\<br /> &amp; ... &amp; \\<br /> \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_p} &amp; ... &amp; \frac{\partial u_p}{\partial x_p} \end{array} \right| = 0

That's the part I don't get.. How does he arrive at that result?

I can understand how, from the system of p PDEs given above, we can arrive at the linear system:

\left( \begin{array}{ccc}<br /> \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_1} &amp; ... &amp; \frac{\partial u_p}{\partial x_1} \\<br /> &amp; ... &amp; \\<br /> \frac{\partial u_1}{\partial x_p} &amp; ... &amp; \frac{\partial u_p}{\partial x_p}<br /> \end{array}<br /> \right) \cdot <br /> \left(\begin{array}{c} \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial u_1} \\ ... \\ \frac{\partial \Phi}{\partial u_p} \end{array} \right) = \left(\begin{array}{c} 0 \\ ... \\ 0 \end{array} \right)

But how do we get from there, to that the determinant of the linear system is zero?

Is this just some incredibly obvious, incredibly simple result from linear algebra that I'm forgetting?

I thought that if the determinant of a linear system is zero, that means the system is not invertible/solvable/etc..??
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the determinant being 0 indicating a linear dependency?
 
Ah yes, that makes sense! Thanks!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K