Proportionality with more than one variable?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on the relationship between variables x, A, and B, particularly in terms of proportionality. It establishes that if x is directly proportional to both A and B, it can be expressed as x = kAB, but emphasizes that this holds true only when constants k1 and k2 are treated as dependent on the other variable. The example of trypsinogen conversion to trypsin illustrates that the rate of change of trypsin (f'(t)) is proportional to the product of trypsin (f(t)) and trypsinogen (F(t)). The conversation also critiques the idea of expressing x as a sum (x = k(A+B)), demonstrating that this leads to contradictions unless both constants are zero. Ultimately, the discussion clarifies that the correct formulation involves the product of A and B rather than their sum.
kochibacha
Messages
14
Reaction score
0
if x is direct, indirect or exponentially propotional to A and as well as B

can we write x=kAB ? if we write the equation seperately, we have x=k1A, x=k2B when combined, x2=(k1k2)1/2 (AB)2 then x=k3(AB)1/2

to see the real complicate example

EX.1 trypsinogen is converted to trypsin in the body where trypsin itself catalyzes its own reaction

let f(t) = amount of trypsin at time t
let F(t) = amount of trypsinogen at time t

write differential equation satisfied by f(t)

in short, f(t) is direct proportional to product itself f(t) and the substrate F(t)

should i write f'(t)=k f(t)F(t) , =k ( f(t)+F(t) ) , = k (f(t)F(t))1/2 or something else?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
kochibacha said:
if x is direct, indirect or exponentially propotional to A and as well as B
If x is directly proportional to A then there is a constant k such that x = kA.
If x is inversely proportional to A then there is a constant k such that x = k/A.

I have never encountered the terms "indirect proportionality" or a "exponential proportionality". Fortunately, those terms are irrelevant to the questions below.

can we write x=kAB ? if we write the equation seperately, we have x=k1A, x=k2B when combined, x2=(k1k2)1/2 (AB)2 then x=k3(AB)1/2

Yes, we can write x = kAB.

[Editted to eliminate my first erroneous explanation]

It is tempting to multiply the two equations together to get x2 = k1k2AB

The problem is that the x=k1A is true only as long as one holds B constant. The value of k1 includes that constant value of B. Similarly, x=k2B is true only as long as one holds A constant. The value of k2 includes that constant value of A.

EX.1 trypsinogen is converted to trypsin in the body where trypsin itself catalyzes its own reaction

let f(t) = amount of trypsin at time t
let F(t) = amount of trypsinogen at time t

write differential equation satisfied by f(t)

in short, f(t) is direct proportional to product itself f(t) and the substrate F(t)

It is the reaction rate that is proportional to the product of f(t) and F(t). So rather than f(t) being proportional to itself (a trivial tautology), it is f'(t) that is proportional to f(t).

So the short form would be "f'(t) is directly proportional to the product of f(t) and F(t)"
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes Terrell
sorry for ambiguous writing it must be X=K(AB)1/2 and f'(t) is direct proportional to product itself f(t) and the substrate F(t)

However, your answer still hasn't answered my questions.

if x is directly proportional to A and as well as B. How can we express x in terms of equations?

if you answered x=constant*A*B could you explain why not x=constant*(A+B)
and what about x=constant1*A , x=constant2*B

when combined, x2=constant1+2*AB

x=+K(AB)1/2 and x=-K(AB)1/2 but we ignore the minus one so x=K(AB)1/2
 
kochibacha said:
if you answered x=constant*A*B could you explain why not x=constant*(A+B)

Suppose for a moment that the above formula held: x = k(A+B) for some constant k.
But we also know that x=k'A for some constant k'.

Take A=1, B=2. Then x=3k by the one equation and x=k' by the second. So k'=3k.
Take A=2, B=1. Then x=3k by the one equation and x=2k' by the second. So 2k'=3k.

Clearly, the only way this can hold is if both k and k' are equal to zero. So x=constant*(A+B) cannot be right except in the degenerate case where x is always zero.

and what about x=constant1*A , x=constant2*B

when combined, x2=constant1+2*AB
As I wrote, because that constant1 is not a constant. It is a function of B. Similarly, constant2 is not a constant. It is function of A.

What function of A can work for constant1? constant1 = k1B can work.

What function of B can work for constant2? constant2 = k2A can work.

What do you get when you multiply the two equations together now?
 
  • Like
Likes 1 person
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top