Transform the partial differential equation with new independent variablesAbout finding the general solution of first-order totally nonlinear PDE with two independent variablesSecond degree partial differential equation with variable-changeSolving a partial differential equation by transformation of variables?Wave Equation Partial Differential EquationHow to solve nonlinear partial differential equation with two variablesSubstitution in partial differential equationSolve the following Partial Differential Equation with homogeneous BC'sTransform the differential equation $yu_x(x, y) - xu_y(x, y) = xyu(x, y)$ by introducing new variables $s = x^2+y^2$ and $t = e^-x^2/2$How to transform the PDE?Partial Differential Equation using Fourier Sine Transform

Glitch in AC sine wave interfering with phase cut dimming

Ticket sales for Queen at the Live Aid

Employer demanding to see degree after poor code review

How does an ARM MCU run faster than the external crystal?

How to extract lower and upper bound in numeric format from a confidence interval string?

Terminology about G- simplicial complexes

What is the 中 in ダウンロード中?

Could I be denied entry into Ireland due to medical and police situations during a previous UK visit?

Restoring order in a deck of playing cards

Future enhancements for the finite element method

Apparent Ring of Craters on the Moon

I think I may have violated academic integrity last year - what should I do?

Can a wire having a 610-670 THz (frequency of blue light) AC frequency supply, generate blue light?

Crossword gone overboard

Transform the partial differential equation with new independent variables

Is my router's IP address really public?

Yandex Programming Contest: Alarms

Inverter Power draw from 12V battery

What are these (utility?) boxes at the side of the house?

How is character development a major role in the plot of a story

Black-and-white film where monster/alien gets fried

Different PCB color ( is it different material? )

Infinitely many hats

Is floating in space similar to falling under gravity?



Transform the partial differential equation with new independent variables


About finding the general solution of first-order totally nonlinear PDE with two independent variablesSecond degree partial differential equation with variable-changeSolving a partial differential equation by transformation of variables?Wave Equation Partial Differential EquationHow to solve nonlinear partial differential equation with two variablesSubstitution in partial differential equationSolve the following Partial Differential Equation with homogeneous BC'sTransform the differential equation $yu_x(x, y) - xu_y(x, y) = xyu(x, y)$ by introducing new variables $s = x^2+y^2$ and $t = e^-x^2/2$How to transform the PDE?Partial Differential Equation using Fourier Sine Transform













1












$begingroup$



Transform the following equation to new independent variables $u = x$, $v = x^2+y^2$



$$ yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0 $$




Notce you don't have to actually solve the pde, the problem is to transform it. The official answer is $ fracpartial zpartial u = 0 $



My work:



$$ yfracpartial zpartial x = xfracpartial zpartial y longrightarrow frac1xfracpartial zpartial x = frac1yfracpartial zpartial y $$



$$ fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y longrightarrow fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial v2y $$



Substituting, you get



$$ frac1x fracpartial zpartial x = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$



By the same procedure you can get



$$ fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u $$



Finally, I got




$$ frac1ufracpartial zpartial u = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$




Which is obviously not the official answer. Am I doing something wrong and if not, how do I finish the problem?



Thanks.










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    1












    $begingroup$



    Transform the following equation to new independent variables $u = x$, $v = x^2+y^2$



    $$ yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0 $$




    Notce you don't have to actually solve the pde, the problem is to transform it. The official answer is $ fracpartial zpartial u = 0 $



    My work:



    $$ yfracpartial zpartial x = xfracpartial zpartial y longrightarrow frac1xfracpartial zpartial x = frac1yfracpartial zpartial y $$



    $$ fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y longrightarrow fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial v2y $$



    Substituting, you get



    $$ frac1x fracpartial zpartial x = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$



    By the same procedure you can get



    $$ fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u $$



    Finally, I got




    $$ frac1ufracpartial zpartial u = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$




    Which is obviously not the official answer. Am I doing something wrong and if not, how do I finish the problem?



    Thanks.










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      1












      1








      1


      1



      $begingroup$



      Transform the following equation to new independent variables $u = x$, $v = x^2+y^2$



      $$ yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0 $$




      Notce you don't have to actually solve the pde, the problem is to transform it. The official answer is $ fracpartial zpartial u = 0 $



      My work:



      $$ yfracpartial zpartial x = xfracpartial zpartial y longrightarrow frac1xfracpartial zpartial x = frac1yfracpartial zpartial y $$



      $$ fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y longrightarrow fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial v2y $$



      Substituting, you get



      $$ frac1x fracpartial zpartial x = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$



      By the same procedure you can get



      $$ fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u $$



      Finally, I got




      $$ frac1ufracpartial zpartial u = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$




      Which is obviously not the official answer. Am I doing something wrong and if not, how do I finish the problem?



      Thanks.










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$





      Transform the following equation to new independent variables $u = x$, $v = x^2+y^2$



      $$ yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0 $$




      Notce you don't have to actually solve the pde, the problem is to transform it. The official answer is $ fracpartial zpartial u = 0 $



      My work:



      $$ yfracpartial zpartial x = xfracpartial zpartial y longrightarrow frac1xfracpartial zpartial x = frac1yfracpartial zpartial y $$



      $$ fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y longrightarrow fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial v2y $$



      Substituting, you get



      $$ frac1x fracpartial zpartial x = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$



      By the same procedure you can get



      $$ fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u $$



      Finally, I got




      $$ frac1ufracpartial zpartial u = 2fracpartial zpartial v $$




      Which is obviously not the official answer. Am I doing something wrong and if not, how do I finish the problem?



      Thanks.







      multivariable-calculus pde






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 8 hours ago









      Victor S.Victor S.

      459213




      459213




















          3 Answers
          3






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3












          $begingroup$

          In your procedure the step $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u$
          does not true.




          By chain rule:



          $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$$



          $$fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial y+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y$$




          $implies$ $$fracpartial zpartial x =fracpartial zpartial u(1)+fracpartial zpartial v(2x)=fracpartial zpartial u+2xfracpartial zpartial v$$ and



          $$ fracpartial zpartial y =fracpartial zpartial u(0)+fracpartial zpartial v(2y)=2yfracpartial zpartial v$$



          So $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$




















            3












            $begingroup$

            $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$




            $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$




            Similarly,




            $$fracpartial zpartial y = 0 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2y$$




            Now, $yfracpartial zpartial x - xfracpartial zpartial y = 0$



            $yfracpartial zpartial u + 2xycdotfracpartial zpartial v -2xycdot fracpartial zpartial v=0implies yfracpartial zpartial u=0$



            As, $y$ need not be necessarily $0$,




            $$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$







            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$




















              2












              $begingroup$

              $$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
              $$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
              $$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
              Hence $partial zoverpartial u=0$



              The more important point is that I don't think you understand how to use the chain rule in multivariable calculus - perhaps you should check how it works






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$












              • $begingroup$
                Indeed I have almost zero practice with the multivariable chain rule despite reading about it.. I'll practice it. Thanks.
                $endgroup$
                – Victor S.
                7 hours ago










              • $begingroup$
                @VictorS. I think the hurdle is understanding that although $u=x$, the partial derivatives with respect to them are not the same. The reason is by the implied fixing of $v$ and $y$ respectively. When we write $partial z/partial x$ we mean $partial z(x,y)/partial x$ for fixed $y$, but $partial z/partial u$ means $partial z(u,v)/partial u$ for fixed $v$. Indeed, if we also had $v=y$, then this would be trivial. But here, fixing $y$ is different to fixing $v$.
                $endgroup$
                – stanley dodds
                7 hours ago












              Your Answer








              StackExchange.ready(function()
              var channelOptions =
              tags: "".split(" "),
              id: "69"
              ;
              initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

              StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
              // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
              if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
              StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
              createEditor();
              );

              else
              createEditor();

              );

              function createEditor()
              StackExchange.prepareEditor(
              heartbeatType: 'answer',
              autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
              convertImagesToLinks: true,
              noModals: true,
              showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
              reputationToPostImages: 10,
              bindNavPrevention: true,
              postfix: "",
              imageUploader:
              brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
              contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
              allowUrls: true
              ,
              noCode: true, onDemand: true,
              discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
              ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
              );



              );













              draft saved

              draft discarded


















              StackExchange.ready(
              function ()
              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3241671%2ftransform-the-partial-differential-equation-with-new-independent-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

              );

              Post as a guest















              Required, but never shown

























              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes








              3 Answers
              3






              active

              oldest

              votes









              active

              oldest

              votes






              active

              oldest

              votes









              3












              $begingroup$

              In your procedure the step $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u$
              does not true.




              By chain rule:



              $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$$



              $$fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial y+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y$$




              $implies$ $$fracpartial zpartial x =fracpartial zpartial u(1)+fracpartial zpartial v(2x)=fracpartial zpartial u+2xfracpartial zpartial v$$ and



              $$ fracpartial zpartial y =fracpartial zpartial u(0)+fracpartial zpartial v(2y)=2yfracpartial zpartial v$$



              So $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$






              share|cite|improve this answer









              $endgroup$

















                3












                $begingroup$

                In your procedure the step $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u$
                does not true.




                By chain rule:



                $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$$



                $$fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial y+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y$$




                $implies$ $$fracpartial zpartial x =fracpartial zpartial u(1)+fracpartial zpartial v(2x)=fracpartial zpartial u+2xfracpartial zpartial v$$ and



                $$ fracpartial zpartial y =fracpartial zpartial u(0)+fracpartial zpartial v(2y)=2yfracpartial zpartial v$$



                So $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$















                  3












                  3








                  3





                  $begingroup$

                  In your procedure the step $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u$
                  does not true.




                  By chain rule:



                  $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$$



                  $$fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial y+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y$$




                  $implies$ $$fracpartial zpartial x =fracpartial zpartial u(1)+fracpartial zpartial v(2x)=fracpartial zpartial u+2xfracpartial zpartial v$$ and



                  $$ fracpartial zpartial y =fracpartial zpartial u(0)+fracpartial zpartial v(2y)=2yfracpartial zpartial v$$



                  So $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$



                  In your procedure the step $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial u$
                  does not true.




                  By chain rule:



                  $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$$



                  $$fracpartial zpartial y = fracpartial zpartial ufracpartial upartial y+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial y$$




                  $implies$ $$fracpartial zpartial x =fracpartial zpartial u(1)+fracpartial zpartial v(2x)=fracpartial zpartial u+2xfracpartial zpartial v$$ and



                  $$ fracpartial zpartial y =fracpartial zpartial u(0)+fracpartial zpartial v(2y)=2yfracpartial zpartial v$$



                  So $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$







                  share|cite|improve this answer












                  share|cite|improve this answer



                  share|cite|improve this answer










                  answered 7 hours ago









                  nmasantanmasanta

                  1,222115




                  1,222115





















                      3












                      $begingroup$

                      $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$




                      $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$




                      Similarly,




                      $$fracpartial zpartial y = 0 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2y$$




                      Now, $yfracpartial zpartial x - xfracpartial zpartial y = 0$



                      $yfracpartial zpartial u + 2xycdotfracpartial zpartial v -2xycdot fracpartial zpartial v=0implies yfracpartial zpartial u=0$



                      As, $y$ need not be necessarily $0$,




                      $$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$







                      share|cite|improve this answer









                      $endgroup$

















                        3












                        $begingroup$

                        $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$




                        $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$




                        Similarly,




                        $$fracpartial zpartial y = 0 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2y$$




                        Now, $yfracpartial zpartial x - xfracpartial zpartial y = 0$



                        $yfracpartial zpartial u + 2xycdotfracpartial zpartial v -2xycdot fracpartial zpartial v=0implies yfracpartial zpartial u=0$



                        As, $y$ need not be necessarily $0$,




                        $$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$







                        share|cite|improve this answer









                        $endgroup$















                          3












                          3








                          3





                          $begingroup$

                          $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$




                          $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$




                          Similarly,




                          $$fracpartial zpartial y = 0 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2y$$




                          Now, $yfracpartial zpartial x - xfracpartial zpartial y = 0$



                          $yfracpartial zpartial u + 2xycdotfracpartial zpartial v -2xycdot fracpartial zpartial v=0implies yfracpartial zpartial u=0$



                          As, $y$ need not be necessarily $0$,




                          $$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$







                          share|cite|improve this answer









                          $endgroup$



                          $fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$




                          $$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$




                          Similarly,




                          $$fracpartial zpartial y = 0 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2y$$




                          Now, $yfracpartial zpartial x - xfracpartial zpartial y = 0$



                          $yfracpartial zpartial u + 2xycdotfracpartial zpartial v -2xycdot fracpartial zpartial v=0implies yfracpartial zpartial u=0$



                          As, $y$ need not be necessarily $0$,




                          $$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$








                          share|cite|improve this answer












                          share|cite|improve this answer



                          share|cite|improve this answer










                          answered 8 hours ago









                          Ak19Ak19

                          2,468213




                          2,468213





















                              2












                              $begingroup$

                              $$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
                              Hence $partial zoverpartial u=0$



                              The more important point is that I don't think you understand how to use the chain rule in multivariable calculus - perhaps you should check how it works






                              share|cite|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$












                              • $begingroup$
                                Indeed I have almost zero practice with the multivariable chain rule despite reading about it.. I'll practice it. Thanks.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Victor S.
                                7 hours ago










                              • $begingroup$
                                @VictorS. I think the hurdle is understanding that although $u=x$, the partial derivatives with respect to them are not the same. The reason is by the implied fixing of $v$ and $y$ respectively. When we write $partial z/partial x$ we mean $partial z(x,y)/partial x$ for fixed $y$, but $partial z/partial u$ means $partial z(u,v)/partial u$ for fixed $v$. Indeed, if we also had $v=y$, then this would be trivial. But here, fixing $y$ is different to fixing $v$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – stanley dodds
                                7 hours ago
















                              2












                              $begingroup$

                              $$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
                              Hence $partial zoverpartial u=0$



                              The more important point is that I don't think you understand how to use the chain rule in multivariable calculus - perhaps you should check how it works






                              share|cite|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$












                              • $begingroup$
                                Indeed I have almost zero practice with the multivariable chain rule despite reading about it.. I'll practice it. Thanks.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Victor S.
                                7 hours ago










                              • $begingroup$
                                @VictorS. I think the hurdle is understanding that although $u=x$, the partial derivatives with respect to them are not the same. The reason is by the implied fixing of $v$ and $y$ respectively. When we write $partial z/partial x$ we mean $partial z(x,y)/partial x$ for fixed $y$, but $partial z/partial u$ means $partial z(u,v)/partial u$ for fixed $v$. Indeed, if we also had $v=y$, then this would be trivial. But here, fixing $y$ is different to fixing $v$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – stanley dodds
                                7 hours ago














                              2












                              2








                              2





                              $begingroup$

                              $$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
                              Hence $partial zoverpartial u=0$



                              The more important point is that I don't think you understand how to use the chain rule in multivariable calculus - perhaps you should check how it works






                              share|cite|improve this answer









                              $endgroup$



                              $$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
                              $$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
                              Hence $partial zoverpartial u=0$



                              The more important point is that I don't think you understand how to use the chain rule in multivariable calculus - perhaps you should check how it works







                              share|cite|improve this answer












                              share|cite|improve this answer



                              share|cite|improve this answer










                              answered 8 hours ago









                              stanley doddsstanley dodds

                              5051310




                              5051310











                              • $begingroup$
                                Indeed I have almost zero practice with the multivariable chain rule despite reading about it.. I'll practice it. Thanks.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Victor S.
                                7 hours ago










                              • $begingroup$
                                @VictorS. I think the hurdle is understanding that although $u=x$, the partial derivatives with respect to them are not the same. The reason is by the implied fixing of $v$ and $y$ respectively. When we write $partial z/partial x$ we mean $partial z(x,y)/partial x$ for fixed $y$, but $partial z/partial u$ means $partial z(u,v)/partial u$ for fixed $v$. Indeed, if we also had $v=y$, then this would be trivial. But here, fixing $y$ is different to fixing $v$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – stanley dodds
                                7 hours ago

















                              • $begingroup$
                                Indeed I have almost zero practice with the multivariable chain rule despite reading about it.. I'll practice it. Thanks.
                                $endgroup$
                                – Victor S.
                                7 hours ago










                              • $begingroup$
                                @VictorS. I think the hurdle is understanding that although $u=x$, the partial derivatives with respect to them are not the same. The reason is by the implied fixing of $v$ and $y$ respectively. When we write $partial z/partial x$ we mean $partial z(x,y)/partial x$ for fixed $y$, but $partial z/partial u$ means $partial z(u,v)/partial u$ for fixed $v$. Indeed, if we also had $v=y$, then this would be trivial. But here, fixing $y$ is different to fixing $v$.
                                $endgroup$
                                – stanley dodds
                                7 hours ago
















                              $begingroup$
                              Indeed I have almost zero practice with the multivariable chain rule despite reading about it.. I'll practice it. Thanks.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Victor S.
                              7 hours ago




                              $begingroup$
                              Indeed I have almost zero practice with the multivariable chain rule despite reading about it.. I'll practice it. Thanks.
                              $endgroup$
                              – Victor S.
                              7 hours ago












                              $begingroup$
                              @VictorS. I think the hurdle is understanding that although $u=x$, the partial derivatives with respect to them are not the same. The reason is by the implied fixing of $v$ and $y$ respectively. When we write $partial z/partial x$ we mean $partial z(x,y)/partial x$ for fixed $y$, but $partial z/partial u$ means $partial z(u,v)/partial u$ for fixed $v$. Indeed, if we also had $v=y$, then this would be trivial. But here, fixing $y$ is different to fixing $v$.
                              $endgroup$
                              – stanley dodds
                              7 hours ago





                              $begingroup$
                              @VictorS. I think the hurdle is understanding that although $u=x$, the partial derivatives with respect to them are not the same. The reason is by the implied fixing of $v$ and $y$ respectively. When we write $partial z/partial x$ we mean $partial z(x,y)/partial x$ for fixed $y$, but $partial z/partial u$ means $partial z(u,v)/partial u$ for fixed $v$. Indeed, if we also had $v=y$, then this would be trivial. But here, fixing $y$ is different to fixing $v$.
                              $endgroup$
                              – stanley dodds
                              7 hours ago


















                              draft saved

                              draft discarded
















































                              Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                              • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                              But avoid


                              • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                              • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

                              Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                              To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                              draft saved


                              draft discarded














                              StackExchange.ready(
                              function ()
                              StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3241671%2ftransform-the-partial-differential-equation-with-new-independent-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');

                              );

                              Post as a guest















                              Required, but never shown





















































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown

































                              Required, but never shown














                              Required, but never shown












                              Required, but never shown







                              Required, but never shown







                              Popular posts from this blog

                              Invision Community Contents History See also References External links Navigation menuProprietaryinvisioncommunity.comIPS Community ForumsIPS Community Forumsthis blog entry"License Changes, IP.Board 3.4, and the Future""Interview -- Matt Mecham of Ibforums""CEO Invision Power Board, Matt Mecham Is a Liar, Thief!"IPB License Explanation 1.3, 1.3.1, 2.0, and 2.1ArchivedSecurity Fixes, Updates And Enhancements For IPB 1.3.1Archived"New Demo Accounts - Invision Power Services"the original"New Default Skin"the original"Invision Power Board 3.0.0 and Applications Released"the original"Archived copy"the original"Perpetual licenses being done away with""Release Notes - Invision Power Services""Introducing: IPS Community Suite 4!"Invision Community Release Notes

                              Canceling a color specificationRandomly assigning color to Graphics3D objects?Default color for Filling in Mathematica 9Coloring specific elements of sets with a prime modified order in an array plotHow to pick a color differing significantly from the colors already in a given color list?Detection of the text colorColor numbers based on their valueCan color schemes for use with ColorData include opacity specification?My dynamic color schemes

                              Ласкавець круглолистий Зміст Опис | Поширення | Галерея | Примітки | Посилання | Навігаційне меню58171138361-22960890446Bupleurum rotundifoliumEuro+Med PlantbasePlants of the World Online — Kew ScienceGermplasm Resources Information Network (GRIN)Ласкавецькн. VI : Літери Ком — Левиправивши або дописавши її