I Understanding the Notation: Deciphering the Equation in the Image

  • I
  • Thread starter Thread starter lucdj3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean Notation
AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around deciphering a mathematical equation related to a Monge parameterization height function, h(p), which depends on the radius p. It is established that h(p) serves as a boundary condition for a differential equation, with specific conditions at the outer and inner boundaries. Participants analyze the notation, particularly focusing on the partial derivative with respect to ρ, evaluated at ρ=ρ0, and question whether the operator should be d/dp instead. There is a consensus that the current interpretation seems reasonable, although there are concerns about potential inaccuracies in the notation. Overall, the conversation highlights the complexities of interpreting mathematical equations and boundary conditions.
lucdj3
Messages
4
Reaction score
0
Can you help me figure out what the equation in the attached image means?
What I do know is: h(p) is a Monge parameterization height function depending on radius (p), this is a boundary condition for a differential equation, and p0 is the outer boundary, with the inner boundary creating a boundary condition of h(pi)=0.
Thanks!
 

Attachments

  • biharmonicboundarycondition.png
    biharmonicboundarycondition.png
    598 bytes · Views: 607
Physics news on Phys.org
I wasn't sure where this thread should be posted, so if there would have been a better place, please let me know and I will re-post there
 
To me this read: The partial derivative with respect to ##\rho## evaluated at ##\rho=\rho_0##.
As in take the derivative first and then set ##\rho=\rho_0##.
I could be wrong though.
 
  • Like
Likes lucdj3
That seems reasonable. Short term it is yielding something that doesn't look wrong, once I get through everything else I'll be able to tell if it's right. Thanks!
Any idea why it wouldn't be d/dp as the operator out front?
 
Maybe the author is being sloppy because it looks like it only depends on ##\rho## and therefore it could be derived with ##\frac{d}{d\rho}##.
 
Well it worked it, thanks!
 
Back
Top