Proofing the Relation of u, v, x, y, a

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving a relationship involving the variables u, v, x, y, and a, particularly in the context of a second-order partial differential equation (PDE). Participants explore different approaches to apply the chain rule and differentiate the function z with respect to these variables.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants suggest using the chain rule to differentiate z with respect to x and y, proposing expressions involving derivatives of functions f and g.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about their initial approach and considers whether to include additional variables in their proof.
  • Another participant presents a detailed derivation of the second derivatives of z with respect to x and y, showing how they relate to the derivatives of f and g.
  • One participant finds an alternative method to differentiate z without using Leibniz's rule, suggesting it is conceptually easier.
  • A later reply acknowledges the alternative method while noting that the original poster might have been expected to use Leibniz's rule.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants present multiple approaches and methods for differentiating z, indicating that there is no consensus on a single preferred method. Some participants agree on the validity of alternative approaches, while others remain focused on the original method involving Leibniz's rule.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved assumptions regarding the definitions of the functions f and g, as well as the specific conditions under which the derivatives are taken. The discussion also reflects varying levels of comfort with different mathematical techniques.

Yankel
Messages
390
Reaction score
0
Hello,

I need to do this proof here:

View attachment 2008

I tried but didn't get what I wanted, so I was re-thinking the whole thing.

If I say u=y+ax and v=y-ax, should I do something like (dz/df)*(df/du)*(du/dx)+...?

Because I tried just with u and v (without f and g), and I got almost what I wanted, with a little minus away from proofing, but I think I got it wrong from the start...
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    2.2 KB · Views: 127
Physics news on Phys.org
Yankel said:
Hello,

I need to do this proof here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/2008

I tried but didn't get what I wanted, so I was re-thinking the whole thing.

If I say u=y+ax and v=y-ax, should I do something like (dz/df)*(df/du)*(du/dx)+...?

Because I tried just with u and v (without f and g), and I got almost what I wanted, with a little minus away from proofing, but I think I got it wrong from the start...

Soppose to have to solve the second order PDE...

$\displaystyle z_{x x} = \frac{1}{a^{2}}\ z_{y y}\ (1)$

Substituting the x and y variable $u = x - a\ y$, $v=x + a\ y$ and applying the chain rule You arrive to write from (1)... $\displaystyle z_{x x} = z_{u u} + 2\ z_{u v} + z_{v v}$

$\displaystyle a^{2}\ z_{y y} = z_{u u} - 2\ z_{u v} + z_{v v}\ (2)$

... and the means that...

$\displaystyle z_{u,v} = 0\ (3)$

It is easy to see that the solution of (3) is...

$\displaystyle z (u,v) = f(u) + g(v) = f( x - a\ y) + g(x + a\ y)\ (3)$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Last edited:
The chain rule tells us that:

(1) $$\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}=\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial z}{\partial g}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}$$

Let $t$ be the variable by which $f$ and $g$ are defined.

The chain rule also tells us:

(2) $$\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}=af'(t)$$

(3) $$\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}=-ag'(t)$$

And so we have:

$$\frac{\partial z}{\partial x}=a\left(f'(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}-g'(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g} \right)$$

Now, differentiating this with respect to $x$, we find:

$$\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial x^2}=a\left(f'(t)\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial f^2}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+af''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}-g'(t)\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial g^2}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}+ag''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g} \right)$$

Using (2) and (3), we find:

$$\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial x^2}=a^2\left(\left(f'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial f^2}+f''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}+\left(g'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial g^2}+g''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g} \right)$$

Now you may proceed similarly to show that:

$$\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial y^2}=\left(f'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial f^2}+f''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}+\left(g'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial g^2}+g''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g}$$
 
I find this easier conceptually without Liebniz:

$z_x = f'(y + ax)(a) + g'(y - ax)(-a)$

$z_{xx} = (a)f''(y + ax)(a) - (a)g''(y - ax)(-a) = a^2(f''(y + ax) + g''(y - ax))$

$z_y = f'(y + ax)(1) + g'(y - ax)(1)$

$z_{yy} = f''(y + ax) + g''(y - ax) = \dfrac{1}{a^2}z_{xx}$
 
Deveno said:
I find this easier conceptually without Liebniz...

I did too, but felt the OP was likely supposed to invoke ol' Liebniz. I'm glad you posted it though, as an easier alternate method. (Yes)
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K