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

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving the relationship between variables u, v, x, y, and a in the context of a second-order partial differential equation (PDE). The user initially struggled with the proof and considered using the chain rule for differentiation, specifically with the substitutions u = y + ax and v = y - ax. They derived expressions for the second derivatives of z with respect to x and y, ultimately leading to a relationship that simplifies to z(u, v) = f(u) + g(v). Participants in the thread shared alternative methods for differentiation, emphasizing conceptual clarity without relying on Leibniz's rule. The conversation highlights the complexities of solving PDEs and the importance of clear mathematical reasoning.
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: 117
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)
 
Thread 'Problem with calculating projections of curl using rotation of contour'
Hello! I tried to calculate projections of curl using rotation of coordinate system but I encountered with following problem. Given: ##rot_xA=\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial y}-\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial z}=0## ##rot_yA=\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial z}-\frac{\partial A_z}{\partial x}=1## ##rot_zA=\frac{\partial A_y}{\partial x}-\frac{\partial A_x}{\partial y}=0## I rotated ##yz##-plane of this coordinate system by an angle ##45## degrees about ##x##-axis and used rotation matrix to...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
603
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K