Given the 2nd order linear PDE
\begin{align}
x^2u_{xx}-2xtu_{xt}+t^2u_{tt}+xu_x+tu_t &=0, & &x>0,\ t \in \mathbb{R} \tag 1
\end{align}
The principal part of the 2nd order equation is:
x2uxx−2xtuxt+t2utt
1.Where a=x2, b=−xt, c=t2So, the discriminant is
D=b2−ac=(−xt)2−x2⋅t2=x2t2−x2t2=0
That means it has a parabolic form.
2. How does this equation look in canonical form?
We have to find the characteristics
dxdt=ab±D⇔dxdt=x2−xt=−xt
and the solution is t=xc⇔c=x⋅t
We consider the transformation to be
\begin{align}
\xi&=xt\\
\eta&=x
\end{align}
So
J=∣∣∣∣∣ξxηxξtηt∣∣∣∣∣=∣∣∣∣∣t1x0∣∣∣∣∣=x=0
We know that $x>0$ by assumption.
Then the transformation is smooth because $x \neq 0$
We also know that u=u(ξ,η)=u(ξ(x,y),η(x,y))
Thus,
- $u_x=tu_{\xi}+u_{\eta}$
- $u_t=xu_{\xi}$
- $u_{x x}= t^2u_{\xi \xi}+t u_{\xi \eta}+tu_{\xi \eta}+u_{\eta \eta}$
- $u_{tt}=x^2u_{\xi \xi}$
- $u_{xt}=xtu_{\xi \xi}+xu_{\xi \eta}+u_{\xi}$
If we plug in all the above to the $(1)$ gives
x2uηη+uη=0.
Is it possible something like that?
Could anyone verify the second-order partial derivative, please?
\begin{align}
x^2u_{xx}-2xtu_{xt}+t^2u_{tt}+xu_x+tu_t &=0, & &x>0,\ t \in \mathbb{R} \tag 1
\end{align}
The principal part of the 2nd order equation is:
x2uxx−2xtuxt+t2utt
1.Where a=x2, b=−xt, c=t2So, the discriminant is
D=b2−ac=(−xt)2−x2⋅t2=x2t2−x2t2=0
That means it has a parabolic form.
2. How does this equation look in canonical form?
We have to find the characteristics
dxdt=ab±D⇔dxdt=x2−xt=−xt
and the solution is t=xc⇔c=x⋅t
We consider the transformation to be
\begin{align}
\xi&=xt\\
\eta&=x
\end{align}
So
J=∣∣∣∣∣ξxηxξtηt∣∣∣∣∣=∣∣∣∣∣t1x0∣∣∣∣∣=x=0
We know that $x>0$ by assumption.
Then the transformation is smooth because $x \neq 0$
We also know that u=u(ξ,η)=u(ξ(x,y),η(x,y))
Thus,
- $u_x=tu_{\xi}+u_{\eta}$
- $u_t=xu_{\xi}$
- $u_{x x}= t^2u_{\xi \xi}+t u_{\xi \eta}+tu_{\xi \eta}+u_{\eta \eta}$
- $u_{tt}=x^2u_{\xi \xi}$
- $u_{xt}=xtu_{\xi \xi}+xu_{\xi \eta}+u_{\xi}$
If we plug in all the above to the $(1)$ gives
x2uηη+uη=0.
Is it possible something like that?
Could anyone verify the second-order partial derivative, please?