Using the Jacobian to Prove Laplace's 2D Eq.

  • Thread starter Thread starter 2fipi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2d Jacobian
2fipi
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



I apologize in advance for my inability to present formal equations here. I'll do my best to be clear with the representation using simple text.

"Use the Jacobian Matrix to Prove Laplace's 2D Eq.: (partial^2 u)/(partial x^2) + (partial^2 u)/(partial y^2) = 0"

Homework Equations



Laplace Terms:

(partial u)/(partial x) = (partial v)/(partial y)

(partial u)/(partial y) = -(partial v)/(partial x)

The Attempt at a Solution



I attempted to place in the various Laplace Terms mentioned above into a 2x2 matrix, and find the determinant. However, this did not appear to work, as it resulted in:

det | (partial u)/(partial x), (partial u)/(partial y)|
| -(partial v)/(partial x), (partial v)/(partial y)|

= (partial^2 u)/(partial x^2) - (partial^2 u)/(partial y^2)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you understand what a partial derivative is? The first set of equations you gave are the Cauchy-Riemann equations for an analytic complex function. The determinant doesn't help. That just gives you products of first derivatives. Not the second derivatives you need for the Laplace equation. Differentiate Cauchy-Riemann.
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...

Similar threads

Back
Top