A Solve the homogenous Neumann problem

  • Thread starter Thread starter chwala
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Neumann
chwala
Gold Member
Messages
2,827
Reaction score
415
TL;DR
See attached
I am going through this notes and i would like some clarity on the highlighted part...the earlier steps are pretty easy to follow...
1663579236438.png


1663579320877.png


Is there a mistake here...did the author mean taking partial derivative with respect to ##t##? is ##\dfrac{d}{dt}## a mistake? How did that change to next line ##\dfrac{∂}{∂t}##... unless i am the one missing something here. Cheers guys.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
Its just a notation convention, taking the partial is the same as taking a derivative.

As you move the derivative operation inside the integral, you realize that you now have more than one variable and so switch to the partial derivative notation and that you are not taking the derivative of x ie x is independent of t.
 
jedishrfu said:
Its just a notation convention, taking the partial is the same as taking a derivative.

As you move the derivative operation inside the integral, you realize that you now have more than one variable and so switch to the partial derivative notation and that you are not taking the derivative of x ie x is independent of t.
Thanks for that...considering it as a 'notation convention' makes sense. I was lingering there for some time trying to figure out on what's happening man...:biggrin: thanks @jedishrfu. Bingo!
 
chwala said:
Is there a mistake here...did the author mean taking partial derivative with respect to ##t##? is ##\dfrac{d}{dt}## a mistake? How did that change to next line ##\dfrac{∂}{∂t}##... unless i am the one missing something here. Cheers guys.

\int_0^l u(x,t)\,dx is a function only of t, in the same way that \int_a^b f(x)\,dx is just a number: the result of a definite integration is not a function of the dummy variable. So the total derivative is correct. When we swap the order of integation with respect to x and differentiation with respect to t we have by the definitions of total and partial differentiation that <br /> \begin{split}<br /> \frac{d}{dt}\int_0^l u(x,t)\,dt &amp;= <br /> \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{1}{h}\left(\int_0^l u(x,t+h)\,dx - \int_0^l u(x,t)\,dx\right) \\<br /> &amp;= \int_0^l \lim_{h \to 0} \frac{u(x,t+h) - u(x,t)}{h}\,dx \\<br /> &amp;= \int_0^l u_t(x,t)\,dt.\end{split}
 
  • Informative
  • Like
Likes DrClaude and chwala
I have the equation ##F^x=m\frac {d}{dt}(\gamma v^x)##, where ##\gamma## is the Lorentz factor, and ##x## is a superscript, not an exponent. In my textbook the solution is given as ##\frac {F^x}{m}t=\frac {v^x}{\sqrt {1-v^{x^2}/c^2}}##. What bothers me is, when I separate the variables I get ##\frac {F^x}{m}dt=d(\gamma v^x)##. Can I simply consider ##d(\gamma v^x)## the variable of integration without any further considerations? Can I simply make the substitution ##\gamma v^x = u## and then...

Similar threads

  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K