There's this Differential EQuation: [1] dy/dx = 1/(xy) + x that was discussed on the forum and, tho' the fella who posed the problem really meant dy/dx = 1/x*y + x = dy/dx = y/x + x, [1] is more interesting, eh? >Huh? I don't find either one very interesting.
In [1], we let: [2] y = z + x2 / 2 ... thereby eliminating that "x" term and getting: [3a] dz/dx = 1/{ x(z + x2 / 2) } which, for sanitary reasons, we write as: [3b] dx/dz = x(z + x2 / 2) or, better still, as [3c] dx/dz - zx = x3 / 2 or, better still, as [3d] e-z2/2dx/dz - z e-z2/2 x = e-z2/2 x3/2 ... multiplying everything in sight by e-z2/2 or, better still, as [3e] d/dz {e-z2/2 x} = e-z2/2 x3/2 Now let: [4] u = e-z2/2 x so x = ez2/2 u Then [3e] becomes:: [5] du/dz = e-z2/2 x3/2 = e-z2/2 {ez2/2 u}3 /2 = ez2/2 u3/2 >zzzZZZ
We separate the variables, like so:
[6] u-2 = - ∫ez2/2 dz Then, going back to our original variables ... >Hey! Where's the ubiquitous +C?
Anyway, in terms of the original x and y variables we get ... from [6], using [4]: [7] ez2 x-2 = - ∫ez2/2 dz where z = y - x2 / 2. >Don't you need a relation between x & y? I mean, you got a relation between x & z and ... Okay! You can regard [2] and [7] as giving parametric equations for x = x(z) and y = y(z) ... or we can write the relation as: >I like it much better when I see the C.
|