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
$begingroup$
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.
multivariable-calculus pde
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
multivariable-calculus pde
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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.
multivariable-calculus pde
$endgroup$
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
multivariable-calculus pde
asked 8 hours ago
Victor S.Victor S.
459213
459213
add a comment |
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
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 $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$
$$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$
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 $0$,
$$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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
);
);
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
$begingroup$
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 $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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 $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$
$endgroup$
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 $yfracpartial zpartial x - x fracpartial zpartial y = 0implies yfracpartial zpartial u+2yxfracpartial zpartial v-2xyfracpartial zpartial v=0implies fracpartial zpartial u=0$
answered 7 hours ago
nmasantanmasanta
1,222115
1,222115
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$
$$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$
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 $0$,
$$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$
$$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$
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 $0$,
$$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$
$$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$
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 $0$,
$$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$
$endgroup$
$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ufracd ud x+fracpartial zpartial vfracpartial vpartial x$
$$fracpartial zpartial x = fracpartial zpartial ucdot1 + fracpartial zpartial vcdot2x $$
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 $0$,
$$fracpartial zpartial u=0$$
answered 8 hours ago
Ak19Ak19
2,468213
2,468213
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
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
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
$$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
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
$endgroup$
$$partial zoverpartial x=duover dxpartial zoverpartial u+dvover dxpartial zoverpartial v=(1)partial zoverpartial u+(2x)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$partial zoverpartial y=duover dypartial zoverpartial u+dvover dypartial zoverpartial v=(0)partial zoverpartial u+(2y)partial zoverpartial v$$
$$0=ypartial zoverpartial x-xpartial zoverpartial y=yleft(partial zoverpartial u+2xpartial zoverpartial vright)-xleft(2ypartial zoverpartial vright)=ypartial zoverpartial u$$
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
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
add a comment |
$begingroup$
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
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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