Solving differential equations with different differential notation?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the treatment of differential notation in solving differential equations, specifically comparing Leibniz notation (\(\frac{dy}{dx}\)) with prime notation (\(y'(x)\)). Participants explore the implications of using each notation and the methods for solving equations expressed in these forms.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions how \(\frac{dy}{dx}\) can be treated as a fraction in solving differential equations and whether it can be replaced with \(y'(x)\).
  • Another participant argues that Leibniz notation can be treated as a fraction based on its historical context, suggesting that while \(y'(x)\) can be used, it may complicate the relations.
  • A participant provides an example of solving \(y'(x) = a\) using integration, demonstrating the process with Leibniz notation.
  • Another participant attempts to solve \(y'(x) = y\) using Leibniz notation and expresses difficulty in applying the same systematic approach with prime notation.
  • Discussion includes a question about how Newton approached differential equations, with a participant noting that Newton primarily focused on integration and used geometric verification.
  • One participant reflects on the complexity of differential equations and acknowledges the challenges of using different notations.
  • Another participant mentions that Newton's notation is compact and easier to use for written notes, despite the complexity of differential equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the effectiveness and systematic nature of using Leibniz versus prime notation in solving differential equations. There is no consensus on which notation is superior or more effective, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note the limitations of using different notations and the dependence on recognizing the forms of equations. The discussion highlights the reliance on experience and guesswork in solving differential equations, particularly when using Newton's methods.

jaydnul
Messages
558
Reaction score
15
Since [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex] is just considered notation, how can we treat it as an actual fraction when soliving differential equations?

Could you, for instance, replace [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex] with [itex]y'(x)[/itex] in a differential equation and work it out?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You can treat the Liebnitz notation as a fraction because that's the way Liebnitz worked out the notation. In that sense it is not "just" a notation.

You can use the primed notation - many do - it's just harder to make the relations.

You can solve, for eg. ##y'(x)=a## by integrating both sides wrt x: $$\int y'\cdot dx = a\int dx \Rightarrow y=ax+c$$

But what about ##y'(x)=ay## ?
 
Last edited:
Using [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex] notation, I get:
[tex]∫ydx=e^x+c[/tex]

So how would I solve this using prime notation:
[tex]y'(x)=y[/tex]
 
Jd0g33 said:
Using [itex]\frac{dy}{dx}[/itex] notation, I get:
[tex]∫ydx=e^x+c[/tex]...
I had hoped you'd do something like this: $$\frac{dy}{dx}=ay\\ \Rightarrow \int \frac{dy}{y}=a \int dx \\ \Rightarrow \ln |y|=ax+c \\ \Rightarrow y=e^{ax+c}=e^ce^{ax}=Ce^{ax}$$
So how would I solve this using prime notation:
[tex]y'(x)=y[/tex]
That's my point: there's no systematic way like there is with Leibnitz - you'd have to recognize the form of the equation and apply a rule or use guesswork.

You'd notice it is of form ##\sum a_n y^{(n)}=0## and guess ##y=e^{\lambda x}## and substitute the guess into the equation to find lambda.
 
So how did Newton do his differential equations?

Btw Simon, I really appreciate the help!
 
Newton's contribution was primarily in integration, which he could verify geometrically. If you look through Principia, for eg. you'll see he didn't use calculus for any of his proofs.

Presumably if he had to use infinitesimal differentials he'd treat them as an inverse integration... using his experience of integration to guide his guesses. Substitute in as above.

Notice: ##\int y'(x)dx = y## right? So integrating both sides of the example he'd have got ##y=\int y(x)dx## and he'd look for equations which have that property. What integrates to give itself? It's just the same as when you do ##\small 3x=12## - you are asking what, multiplied by 3, gives you 12. You do it by experience and look-up tables (which you have memorized).

Note: The number one main method for solving DEs remains the guesswork method.
We just know a lot of tricks for figuring out a good guess.
 
Oh I see.

Ya that makes sense because the only function of x that satisfies [itex]y=y'[/itex] and [itex]y=∫y[/itex] would be [itex]e^x[/itex].

I can see how that would get complicated haha.

Thanks again Simon!
 
Oh sure - DEs get arbitrarily complicated even at 1st order.
Newtons notation is compact though, and easier to type, so you'll still see it a lot for written notes.

No worries - see that "thanks" button?
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: 1 person

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
4K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
9K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K