PDE: Laplace's Equation solutions

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves showing that a function defined in terms of another function, which satisfies Laplace's equation, also satisfies Laplace's equation. The context is within the subject area of partial differential equations, specifically focusing on Laplace's equation.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss various methods to demonstrate that v(x,y) satisfies Laplace's equation, including differentiation of the arguments and using the chain rule. There is consideration of the implications of different cases for the parameter λ.

Discussion Status

Some participants have offered guidance on potential approaches, suggesting that differentiating the arguments or plugging v into Laplace's equation could be effective. Multiple interpretations of the problem are being explored, particularly regarding the treatment of the terms in the equations.

Contextual Notes

There are mentions of specific cases for λ and the need to clarify the signs in the differential equations, indicating potential confusion or misinterpretation of the original problem setup.

dgreenheck
Messages
22
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Suppose that u(x,y) is a solution of Laplace's equation. If \theta is a fixed real number, define the function v(x,y) = u(xcos\theta - ysin\theta, xsin\theta + ycos\theta). Show that v(x,y) is a solution of Laplace's equation.

Homework Equations



Laplace's equation: uxx + uyy = 0.

Separated solutions

X''(x) - \lambdaX(x)=0.

Y''(y) - \lambdaY(y)=0.

Solutions for \lambda > 0

X(x) = A1ekx + A2e-kx

Y(y) = A3cosky + A4sinky.

Solutions for \lambda < 0

Y(y) = A1ekx + A2e-kx

X(x) = A3cosky + A4sinky.

The Attempt at a Solution



I began by trying to analyze each of the cases (\lambda>0, \lambda<0, \lambda=0) for the solution. But working these out would take forever and I know it isn't the most elegant way of doing it. My thinking is that I can somehow just differentiate the arguments for v(x,y) so I would get a factor of k2sin2\thetacos2\theta for uxx and -k2sin2\thetacos2\theta for uyy. Would this be a valid way of proving the statement to avoid doing all the work? Or is there a better way? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
dgreenheck said:
My thinking is that I can somehow just differentiate the arguments for v(x,y) so I would get a factor of k2sin2\thetacos2\theta for uxx and -k2sin2\thetacos2\theta for uyy. Would this be a valid way of proving the statement to avoid doing all the work? Or is there a better way? Thanks.
That is perfectly fine and the way I would do it. It is also likely to be the way intended by whomever wrote the problem.
 
Separated solutions
X''(x) - λX(x)=0.
Y''(y) + λY(y)=0.there must be "+" , not "-"
 
by the way

therefore other equation will be changed
 
Your second strategy would perhaps work best. Since you are given that u satisfies Laplace's equation, it is perhaps a good idea to plug v into Laplace's equation and try to get it in terms of u. Your main tool for that will be the chain rule for scalar fields.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K