Linear 1st order PDE (boundary conditions)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves solving a first-order linear partial differential equation given by u_{x}+2xy^{2}u_{y}=0 with a boundary condition u(x,0)=\phi(x). Participants are exploring the implications of the boundary condition and its relationship to the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the separation of variables and the form of the solution u(x,y)=f(x^2+\frac{1}{y}). There is confusion regarding the boundary condition at y=0 and its implications for the function f. Questions arise about the behavior of f as u approaches infinity and how it relates to the boundary condition.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants questioning the validity of the boundary condition and its implications for the function f. There is acknowledgment of potential misunderstandings regarding the nature of the boundary condition and its dependence on x.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the boundary condition u(x,0)=\phi(x) may lead to complications if φ(x) is not constant, raising questions about the overall coherence of the problem setup.

twizzy
Messages
4
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Solve the equation u_{x}+2xy^{2}u_{y}=0 with u(x,0)=\phi(x)

Homework Equations


Implicit function theorem
\frac{dy}{dx}=-\frac{\partial u/\partial x}{\partial u/\partial y}

The Attempt at a Solution


-\frac{u_x}{u_y}=\frac{dy}{dx}=2xy^2
Separating variables
\frac{dy}{y^2}=2xdx
\frac{-1}{y}=x^2+c
C=x^2+\frac{1}{y}
So u(x,y)=f(x^2+\frac{1}{y})
The boundary condition is given as evaluating at y=0 which doesn't seem to make sense. Any thoughts? Thanks!
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Wouldn't be boundary condition mean you need to pick an f such that f(u)->0 as u->infinity?
 
Dick said:
Wouldn't be boundary condition mean you need to pick an f such that f(u)->0 as u->infinity?

Since u(x,y)=f(x^2+\frac{1}{y}) and u(x,0)=\phi(x),
we have u(x,0)=f(x^2+\frac{1}{\epsilon})=\phi(x) where \epsilon\rightarrow 0. This would imply that \lim_{u\rightarrow \infty}f(u)=\phi(x). Then again, that can't be right because the limit as u\rightarrow \infty should not depend on x. I'm not sure if I see why you have "f(u)->0".
 
twizzy said:
Since u(x,y)=f(x^2+\frac{1}{y}) and u(x,0)=\phi(x),
we have u(x,0)=f(x^2+\frac{1}{\epsilon})=\phi(x) where \epsilon\rightarrow 0. This would imply that \lim_{u\rightarrow \infty}f(u)=\phi(x). Then again, that can't be right because the limit as u\rightarrow \infty should not depend on x. I'm not sure if I see why you have "f(u)->0".

I have "f(u)->0" because I was reading the boundary condition as u(x,0)=0, not phi(x). My mistake.
 
So then if \phi(x) were not a constant, would the question even make sense?
 
twizzy said:
So then if \phi(x) were not a constant, would the question even make sense?

I'm having trouble seeing how. But then maybe I'm missing something...
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
19
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
2K