Proofing the Relation of u, v, x, y, a

In summary, the conversation discusses a proof involving a second order PDE and the use of the chain rule to solve it. Different variables are substituted and the chain rule is applied to arrive at the solution. There is also a discussion of an alternate method using Liebniz.
  • #1
Yankel
395
0
Hello,

I need to do this proof here:

View attachment 2008

I tried but didn't get what I wanted, so I was re-thinking the whole thing.

If I say u=y+ax and v=y-ax, should I do something like (dz/df)*(df/du)*(du/dx)+...?

Because I tried just with u and v (without f and g), and I got almost what I wanted, with a little minus away from proofing, but I think I got it wrong from the start...
 

Attachments

  • Capture.PNG
    Capture.PNG
    2.2 KB · Views: 76
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Yankel said:
Hello,

I need to do this proof here:

https://www.physicsforums.com/attachments/2008

I tried but didn't get what I wanted, so I was re-thinking the whole thing.

If I say u=y+ax and v=y-ax, should I do something like (dz/df)*(df/du)*(du/dx)+...?

Because I tried just with u and v (without f and g), and I got almost what I wanted, with a little minus away from proofing, but I think I got it wrong from the start...

Soppose to have to solve the second order PDE...

$\displaystyle z_{x x} = \frac{1}{a^{2}}\ z_{y y}\ (1)$

Substituting the x and y variable $u = x - a\ y$, $v=x + a\ y$ and applying the chain rule You arrive to write from (1)... $\displaystyle z_{x x} = z_{u u} + 2\ z_{u v} + z_{v v}$

$\displaystyle a^{2}\ z_{y y} = z_{u u} - 2\ z_{u v} + z_{v v}\ (2)$

... and the means that...

$\displaystyle z_{u,v} = 0\ (3)$

It is easy to see that the solution of (3) is...

$\displaystyle z (u,v) = f(u) + g(v) = f( x - a\ y) + g(x + a\ y)\ (3)$

Kind regards

$\chi$ $\sigma$
 
Last edited:
  • #3
The chain rule tells us that:

(1) \(\displaystyle \frac{\partial z}{\partial x}=\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+\frac{\partial z}{\partial g}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}\)

Let $t$ be the variable by which $f$ and $g$ are defined.

The chain rule also tells us:

(2) \(\displaystyle \frac{\partial f}{\partial x}=af'(t)\)

(3) \(\displaystyle \frac{\partial g}{\partial x}=-ag'(t)\)

And so we have:

\(\displaystyle \frac{\partial z}{\partial x}=a\left(f'(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}-g'(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g} \right)\)

Now, differentiating this with respect to $x$, we find:

\(\displaystyle \frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial x^2}=a\left(f'(t)\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial f^2}\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}+af''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}-g'(t)\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial g^2}\frac{\partial g}{\partial x}+ag''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g} \right)\)

Using (2) and (3), we find:

\(\displaystyle \frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial x^2}=a^2\left(\left(f'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial f^2}+f''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}+\left(g'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial g^2}+g''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g} \right)\)

Now you may proceed similarly to show that:

\(\displaystyle \frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial y^2}=\left(f'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial f^2}+f''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial f}+\left(g'(t) \right)^2\frac{\partial^2 z}{\partial g^2}+g''(t)\frac{\partial z}{\partial g}\)
 
  • #4
I find this easier conceptually without Liebniz:

$z_x = f'(y + ax)(a) + g'(y - ax)(-a)$

$z_{xx} = (a)f''(y + ax)(a) - (a)g''(y - ax)(-a) = a^2(f''(y + ax) + g''(y - ax))$

$z_y = f'(y + ax)(1) + g'(y - ax)(1)$

$z_{yy} = f''(y + ax) + g''(y - ax) = \dfrac{1}{a^2}z_{xx}$
 
  • #5
Deveno said:
I find this easier conceptually without Liebniz...

I did too, but felt the OP was likely supposed to invoke ol' Liebniz. I'm glad you posted it though, as an easier alternate method. (Yes)
 

Related to Proofing the Relation of u, v, x, y, a

1. What is the relation between u, v, x, y, and a?

The relation between u, v, x, y, and a is a mathematical equation that describes how these variables are related to each other.

2. How do I prove the relation between u, v, x, y, and a?

To prove the relation between these variables, you can use mathematical methods such as substitution, elimination, or graphing to show that the equation holds true for all values of the variables.

3. Why is it important to proof the relation between u, v, x, y, and a?

Proofing the relation between these variables is important because it allows us to verify the accuracy of the equation and ensure that it accurately describes the relationship between the variables.

4. What are the steps involved in proofing the relation between u, v, x, y, and a?

The steps involved in proofing the relation between these variables may vary depending on the specific equation, but generally involve rearranging the equation, substituting values, and simplifying until both sides of the equation are equal.

5. Can the relation between u, v, x, y, and a be proven using real-world examples?

Yes, the relation between these variables can be proven using real-world examples. For instance, if the equation describes the relationship between distance, time, and speed, you can use actual measurements to prove that the equation holds true.

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
929
  • Calculus
Replies
5
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • Calculus
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • Differential Geometry
Replies
2
Views
685
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
14
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
1K
Back
Top