What is the significance of -Mu in equation equality and boundedness?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ssky
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the significance of the term -Mu in a specific equation related to equality and boundedness. Participants seek clarification on the implications of this term within the context of the equation, exploring its mathematical properties and the reasoning behind its negative value.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that the left-hand side (LHS) of the equation is a function of time (t) and the right-hand side (RHS) is a function of position (x), suggesting that both sides must be equal for all values of x and t.
  • Others argue that for the equation to hold true, the LHS must be constant across all x for a fixed t, and vice versa for the RHS, implying that both sides represent the same constant value.
  • A participant questions the necessity of the negative value in the equation, prompting discussions about its role in ensuring the boundedness of the function as time approaches infinity.
  • Another participant suggests that using a negative constant (-Mu^2) is essential to prevent the function from diverging to infinity, as a positive constant would lead to unbounded growth.
  • Some participants express confusion and request clearer examples or further explanations regarding the implications of the equation and the significance of the negative value.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree that the equation must hold true for all values of x and t, but there is uncertainty regarding the implications of the negative value and its necessity for boundedness. The discussion remains unresolved, with multiple viewpoints on the interpretation of the equation.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the lack of clarity on the previous context of the equation and the specific definitions of terms like Mu. The discussion also reflects varying levels of understanding among participants, which may affect the interpretation of the mathematical concepts involved.

ssky
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
http://dc191.4shared.com/img/6pyFHiMb/s7/0.8584304740152441/706869958.jpg

I need more explanation for the first equation in the picture above:

Why we said that each side in the equation is equal (-Mu) ?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
hi ssky! :smile:

(have a mu: µ :wink:)

the LHS is the same for all x, and the RHS is the same for all t,

and since they're equal, they must be the same for all x and t :smile:
 
:shy:

I am sorry,
can you explain more.
and why we took the negative value?
 
the equation has to be true for all values of x and t

the LHS is a function of t, but for a fixed value of t it is the same for all values of x …

if you were to plot it on a 3D graph, with horizontal x and t axes, it would be a hillside on which all the contour lines (lines of level height) were parallel to the t axis…

but the RHS would be a hillside on which all the contour lines (lines of level height) were parallel to the x axis …

but the LHS and the RHS have to be the same hillside …

the only way that can happen is if the hillside is completely flat! :smile:
ssky said:
and why we took the negative value?

without seeing the previous page (which i don't want to :wink:), I've no idea :redface:
 
Actually, :rolleyes:

i didn't understand :biggrin:
:cry:
:confused:
:bugeye:
can you give me a clear example about this problem?


 
Last edited:
The equation looks like this:

f(t)=g(x)

The left side is a function of t only, and the right side a function of x only. Now, pick t=0.

f(0)=g(x)

This is true for ANY value of x, so it must be that g(x) is a constant function. Different values of x don't change g(x), because you always get f(0).

Similarly, if we set x=0 we get
f(t)=g(0)

This is true for every value of t, so f(t) is a constant function as well
 
ssky said:
:shy:

I am sorry,
can you explain more.
and why we took the negative value?
It says in what you posted "where the negative value was forced to warrent the boundedness of the function [itex]\Gamma(t)[/itex] as [itex]t\to \infty[/itex]".

I suspect that if you set it equal to "a" where a could be any constant, you would eventually get a function involving [itex]e^{at}[/itex] which will go to infinity if a is positive. Writing [itex]a= -\mu^2[/itex] where [itex]\mu[/itex] can be any real number forces a to be negative so that [itex]e^{at}[/itex] does NOT go to infinity and is bounded.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
987
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
3K
Replies
4
Views
3K