Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

Farlow book PDEs for Scientists and Engineers pg. 27 shows derivation for Heat Equation. It starts by stating

Net change of heat inside $[x,x+\Delta x]$ = Net flux of heat across boundaries + Total heat generated inside $[x,x+\Delta x]$

and writing the conservation equation

$$\textit{Total Heat Inside} [x,x+\Delta x]= cpA \int _{ x}^{x+\Delta x}u(s,t) ds $$

Takes derivative according to time, rewrites the equation

$$ \frac{d}{dt} \int _{ x}^{x+\Delta x} c\rho A u(s,t) ds = c\rho A \int _{ x}^{x+\Delta x} u_t(s,t) ds $$

$$ = kA [ u_x(x+\Delta x,t) - u_x(x,t)] A \int _{x}^{x+\Delta x} f(s,t) ds $$

At this point he wants to get rid of the integrals, so he uses the mean value theorem which is, for a $a < \xi < b$

$$ \int _{ a}^{b} f(x) dx = f(\xi)(b-a) $$

A $\xi$ must exist within the specified interval. He applies it to the equation, and gets

$$ c\rho A u_t(\xi_1,t)\Delta x = kA[u_x(x+\Delta x, t) - u_x(x,t)] + Af(\xi_2,t)\Delta x $$

$$ x < \xi < x+\Delta x $$

This also makes sense, there are multiple $\xi$'s for two different integrals. However below, he turns two $\xi$'s into one,

$$ u_t(\xi,t) = \frac{k}{c\rho} \bigg[ \frac{u_x(x+\Delta x,t) - u_x(x,t)} {\Delta x} \bigg] + \frac{ 1}{c\rho}f(\xi,t) $$

and while $$ \Delta x \to 0 $$

he gets

$$ u_t(x,t) = \alpha^2u_{xx}(x,t) + F(x,t) $$

In this last statement, $\xi$'s are replaced by $x$. So I have three questions: First how did the author combine the two $\xi$'s, second, while $\Delta \to 0$, how he turned them into $x$. I guess it is understandable if the $\Delta x$ becomes infinitesimally small, than whatever's inside can only be $x$? That still does not explain the two $\xi$'s though.

Third question: Net flux of heat across boundary uses $u_x(x+\Delta x,t) - u_x(x,t)$, that is derivative according to space, and takes difference between two sectional endpoints. Why $u_x$? Shouldn't we use simply $u$ here?


share|cite|improve this question
up vote 4 down vote accepted
  1. In certain contexts it is usual to use the same letter for different quantities. A typical example are inequalities, in which a constant $C$ may take different values. In this case, the author is probably using the same letter $\xi$ to mean "a point between $x$ and $x+\Delta x$", with the understanding that it may take different values in different terms of the equations.
  2. Since $x\le\xi\le x+\Delta x$, as $\Delta x\to0$, $\xi\to x$, independently of the real value of $\xi$.
  3. Remember that $u$ represents temperature; then $u(x+\Delta x,t)-u(x,t)$ is the chenge of temperature, not the change of heat flux. Newton's law says that the heat flow is proportional to the spatial gradient of temperature, which is $u_x$; hence the expresion for the heat fluxin the interval $[\,x,x+\Delta x\,]$.
share|cite|improve this answer
Is it also because of #2 he could combine the two $\xi$'s? Since $\Delta x \to 0$, there could be no two different $\xi$ values there. – BB_ML Jan 20 '12 at 10:13
Intuitively (without resorting to the term flux) I guess $u_x$ would mean the heat difference between two infinitesimal particles next to eachtother. Author takes that difference once for $x$, then for $x+\Delta x$, and the difference of these differences is the net change of heat inside the section (minus the generated heat of course). I guess that works because normally the rod would have equal temparature everywhere, $u_x$ would be zero everywhere. – BB_ML Jan 20 '12 at 10:20
The author is not combining two values. Is using the same symbol (in this case the leter $\xi$) to denote two values that are most probably different. It is just a matter of economy of symbols and readability. I know it is confusing at first, but you will get used to it. – Julián Aguirre Jan 20 '12 at 10:47
Economy of symbols, yes, but in this case, changing $\xi_1,\xi_2\to\xi$ really does not increase readability in my opinion. – Willie Wong Jan 20 '12 at 13:36

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.