Undergrad Understanding the Notation: Deciphering the Equation in the Image

  • Thread starter Thread starter lucdj3
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mean Notation
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on the interpretation of a mathematical equation involving a Monge parameterization height function, h(p), which is dependent on the radius (p). The boundary conditions specified include h(pi)=0 for the inner boundary and p0 as the outer boundary. Participants analyze the partial derivative with respect to ρ, evaluated at ρ=ρ0, and debate the appropriateness of using d/dp versus d/dρ as the differential operator. The consensus suggests that the equation's formulation is reasonable, although some uncertainty remains regarding the author's notation.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Monge parameterization in differential equations
  • Familiarity with boundary conditions in mathematical modeling
  • Knowledge of partial derivatives and their applications
  • Basic concepts of differential operators in calculus
NEXT STEPS
  • Research Monge parameterization techniques in differential equations
  • Study boundary value problems and their significance in mathematical modeling
  • Learn about the application of partial derivatives in physics and engineering
  • Explore the differences between various differential operators, particularly d/dp and d/dρ
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers who are working with differential equations, boundary value problems, or those interested in advanced calculus concepts.

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: 618
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!
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
515
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K