What does it mean by 'implicitly depends on x' ?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter KFC
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the implications of the equation \(\frac{\partial F(x, y)}{\partial x} = 0\) in the context of ordinary differential equations (ODEs). It establishes that if \(F(x, y)\) is a function of \(y\) alone, denoted as \(g(y)\), then it is implicitly dependent on \(x\) through \(y\). The conclusion drawn is that under the assumptions that \(y\) is a function of \(x\) and that the partial derivative is taken with respect to \(x\), \(F(x, y)\) must equal a constant. This clarifies the use of the term 'implicitly' in relation to dependencies in ODEs.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of ordinary differential equations (ODEs)
  • Familiarity with partial derivatives
  • Knowledge of implicit functions
  • Basic calculus concepts, particularly related to functions of multiple variables
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of exact differential equations in ODEs
  • Learn about implicit differentiation and its applications
  • Explore the concept of function dependencies in multivariable calculus
  • Investigate the implications of the implicit function theorem
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, particularly those focusing on differential equations, calculus, and mathematical analysis. This discussion is beneficial for anyone seeking to deepen their understanding of function dependencies and partial derivatives in ODEs.

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Hi there,
I am reading an introduction on solving ODE, there the exact equation is mentioned. Suppose a ODE is in the following form

[tex]M(x, y) + N(x, y)\frac{dy}{dx} = 0[/tex]

assume there is a function [tex]F(x, y)[/tex] such that

[tex]\frac{\partial F(x, y)}{\partial x} = M(x, y) + N(x, y)\frac{dy}{dx}[/tex]

Hence,
[tex]\frac{\partial F(x, y)}{\partial x} = 0[/tex]

The text says that the above equation imply that [tex]F(x, y) = \text{Const}[/tex]

But here are my doubts

1) Let's assume the above equation is true, so does it mean [tex]F(x, y)[/tex] has no way to be a function of x if the original equation is exact?

2) What about if [tex]F(x,y) = g(y)[/tex], in this case, we don't know the exact form of y, but we know that y is depending on x, so can we say [tex]F(x,y)=g(y)[/tex] is implicitly depending on x? If it is true, how can we conclude that [tex]F(x, y) = \text{Const}[/tex] instead of some functions of y?

Well, you might find what I am asking is vague. What I actually means is if [tex]F(x,y)=g(y)[/tex], so can we safely say that

[tex]\frac{\partial F(x, y)}{\partial x} = \frac{\partial g(y)}{\partial x} = 0[/tex]

It is quite confusing to use the term 'implicitly'! Because we do know that y=y(x), so how come we put
[tex]\frac{\partial g(y)}{\partial x} = 0[/tex] instead of [tex]\frac{\partial g(y)}{\partial y}\frac{dy}{dx} = 0[/tex] ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
I agree with the conclusion that

[tex] \frac{\partial F(x, y)}{\partial x} = 0[/tex]

implies that F(x,y) = const under two assumptions:

(1) y is a function of x, not an independent variable

(2) [tex]\frac{\partial F(x, y)}{\partial x}[/tex] means "take the partial derivative of F with respect to x" and not "take the partial derivative of F with respect to the first variable."

With these two assumptions, I can write F(x,y(x)) = G(x) and dF(x,y)/dx = dG(x)/dx = 0, so G(x) = const = F(x,y).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
4K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K