Understanding the Validity of PDE Solutions with Variable Substitution

  • Thread starter Thread starter bullet_ballet
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Pde
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the validity of solutions to the partial differential equation (PDE) u_t + c u_x = 0, specifically examining the function u(x, t) = f(x - ct) where f is a C¹ function. Participants clarify that while f(x - ct) is indeed a solution, x - ct itself is not a solution but rather a transformation that aids in finding solutions under specific boundary conditions. The consensus is that u = f(x - ct) represents the most general solution to the PDE, contingent upon the appropriate boundary conditions being applied.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of partial differential equations (PDEs)
  • Familiarity with the concept of characteristic equations
  • Knowledge of boundary conditions in differential equations
  • Basic calculus, particularly partial derivatives
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of characteristics for solving PDEs
  • Explore boundary value problems and their implications on solutions
  • Learn about the uniqueness of solutions in the context of well-posed problems
  • Investigate the role of C¹ functions in the context of PDE solutions
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students interested in the theory and application of partial differential equations, particularly those focused on wave propagation and boundary value problems.

bullet_ballet
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
"Verify that, for any C¹ function f(x), u(x, t) = f(x - ct) is a solution of the PDE u_t + c u_x = 0, where c is a constant and u_t and u_x are partial derivatives."

I managed to get the solution for this and a similar problem by showing that the new variable (x - ct in this case) satisfies the PDE, but why does doing that work? Is it because if x-ct is a solution so is any function of it? That just doesn't sound right since you'd need at least two linearly independent solutions to make that kind of generalization. Or maybe I'm just an idiot. :)

Mucho thanks if anyone can point out what basic thing I'm missing.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
bullet_ballet said:
"Verify that, for any C¹ function f(x), u(x, t) = f(x - ct) is a solution of the PDE u_t + c u_x = 0, where c is a constant and u_t and u_x are partial derivatives."

I managed to get the solution for this and a similar problem by acting on what the new variable is (x - ct in this case), but why does doing that work? Is it because if x-ct is a solution so is any function of it? That just doesn't sound right since you'd need at least two linearly independent solutions to make that kind of generalization. Or maybe I'm just an idiot. :)

Mucho thanks if anyone can point out what basic thing I'm missing.


f(x-ct) represents a function that is moving along the x-axis with velocity c. The variable x-ct is widely used in wave propagation phenomena, because making this traslation you are traveling just over the wave edge, so that some variables remain constant viewed at that point. It is true that f(x-ct) is the solution of your PDE (named a characteristic equation), but f has to be figured out by means of your boundary conditions.


I'm not sure of having answered you completely.
 
I don't think I was specific enough. I was asking why I could use x-ct to satisfy the PDE and show that f(x-ct) is therefore a solution.

Having done this for a couple of different problems, it seemed like I could draw the conclusion that if the PDE held for some a(x,t), then the solution to the PDE could be stated as u(x,t) = f(a(x,t)).
 
bullet_ballet said:
Having done this for a couple of different problems, it seemed like I could draw the conclusion that if the PDE held for some a(x,t), then the solution to the PDE could be stated as u(x,t) = f(a(x,t)).

x-ct is NOT a solution of your PDE. It's only a "special variable" which enhances a simpler solution. Why, because viewing your PDE one can establish:

\frac{dx}{dt}=c ----> along the rect x-ct=x_o u(x,t)=f(xo) is a constant.

f is a solution of your PDE but x-ct is not a solution.
 
Sure, Clausius2!
u(x,t)=x-ct is certainly A solution of that differential equation.
(f is here the identity function)
 
arildno said:
Sure, Clausius2!
u(x,t)=x-ct is certainly A solution of that differential equation.
(f is here the identity function)

You are not allowed to substitute any value for f if you do not know (as me) the boundary conditions. So that, for the problem he posted, f=1 is not a general solution. Perhaps some boundary conditions enhances your reply, but this is not the case.
 
Without boundary conditions, a differential equation has a multitude of solutions.
If you put on boundary conditions and the problem is well-posed, you'll have a unique f satisfying BOTH the differential equation and the boundary conditions.
I never said f=x-ct (or f=1) are a GENERAL solution, I said it was A solution.
 
arildno said:
Without boundary conditions, a differential equation has a multitude of solutions.
......
I never said f=x-ct (or f=1) are a GENERAL solution, I said it was A solution.

Ok Norwegian (well written?, sorry if not) friend, If you want we could come up with a settlement:

u=x-ct is only a solution for a concrete boundary conditions.
u=f(x-ct) is the most general solution (not general in the sense you wrote, only in the sense of generallity) for that problem.

Is it Ok?
 
u=f(x-ct) is certainly, indisputably, factually and necessarily the most general solution (of the differential equation).

There exist a well-posed problem in which u(x,t)=x-ct is the unique solution.
Is that OK?

(I don't think we had much disagreement in the first place..)
 
  • #10
Ha Ha Ha! :smile:

OK! We have reached an agreement!

Where are the beers?

(What would say Bullet Ballet of all this stuff? :confused: )
 
  • #11
I think :confused: is his answer..:wink:
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K