1
$\begingroup$

I have come across a question which asks the following of me:

By defining $$ \alpha = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \hspace{10mm} \beta = \frac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} $$ express the partial differential equation $$ \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} - \frac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2} = 0 $$ as a system of 2 first order partial differential equations in $\alpha$ and $\beta$.

I am not sure how I am to go about this one. Clearly, I can see that the PDE may be expressed in terms of $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as $$ \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} - \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial y} = 0 $$ and (I believe) we may write this as the system $$ \gamma(x,y) = \frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} \hspace{10mm} \gamma (x,y) = \frac{\partial \beta}{\partial y} $$ but I'm unsure of where to go from here.

Note: I have a check sheet for this question which states the answer as $$ U_x + U_y = 0 \hspace{10mm} V_x - V_y = 0 $$

$\endgroup$
2
$\begingroup$

Lauds to John Doe for an accurate and accepted answer. In the following, I have tried to explain why both the relations

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial y}, \; \dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial x} \tag 0$

are necessary and sufficient.

Given that

$\dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} - \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2} = 0, \tag 1$

or

$\dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} = \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2}, \tag 2$

then clearly by setting

$\alpha = \dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} \tag 3$

and

$\beta = \dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}, \tag 4$

we obtain the first-order equation

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} = \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2} = \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial y}, \tag 5$

i.e.

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} - \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial y} = 0. \tag 6$

However, (6) by itself is not yet a system of first-order equations equivalent to (1), (2); indeed, so far all (6) tells us is that we have a vector field $(\alpha, \beta)^T$ on some region of $\Bbb R^2$ the components of which satisfy this equation. What is not evident from (6), which we need to affirm the equivalence of (6) and (1), (2), is the existence of a scalar function $\phi$ such that (3) and (4) apply; that is, $(\alpha, \beta)^T$ is the gradient some $\phi$; we thus need $\phi$ such that

$(\alpha, \beta)^T = \nabla \phi. \tag 7$

It is well-known that such a $\phi$ exists if and only if

$\nabla \times (\alpha, \beta)^T = 0, \tag 8$

or

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y} - \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial x} = 0; \tag 9$

thus the equation (1), (2) is equivalent to the system (6), (9); that is, to

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial y}, \tag{10}$

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial x}. \tag{11}$

To re-iterate, taking $\alpha$ and $\beta$ as in (3), (4), we see via (5) that (1)-(2) imply (6), (10); (11) follows from the fact that, for sufficiently differentiable $\phi$, the mixed partials satisfy

$\dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x \partial y} = \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y \partial x}, \tag{12}$

whence

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial y} \dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y \partial x} = \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x \partial y} = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x} \dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial x}; \tag{13}$

having arrived at (10), (11) starting from (1), (2), we may walk in the other direction: for sufficiently differentiable functions $\alpha$, $\beta$, (11) implies that the vector field $(\alpha, \beta)^T$ is curl free on its region of definition in $\Bbb R^2$, hence must be the gradient of some function $\phi$, that is, (7) binds, and then we have

$\alpha = \dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x}, \tag{14}$

and

$\beta = \dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial y}; \tag{15}$

thus, using (10),

$\dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial x^2} = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x}\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial y}\dfrac{\partial \phi}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial^2 \phi}{\partial y^2}, \tag{16}$

whence follows (1).

I can't speak to our OP J Chapman's introduction of $U$ and $V$ with

$U_x + U_y = 0 = V_x - V_y \tag{17}$

since these functions are left undefined in the text of the question.

If we are give a sufficiently differentiable function $\phi$ of $x$ and $y$, then the symmetry relation of the mixed partials (12) immediately follows; thus (11) comes "for free", so to speak, when we define $(\alpha, \beta)^T = \nabla \phi$; it is in the attempt to define $\phi$ from $\alpha$ and $\beta$ satisfying (10), however, we discover that the assumption (11) is essential to ensure that the requisite $\phi$ exists.

Finally, I couldn't help but observe that the system (10)-(11) bears a strong resemblance to the Cauchy-Riemann equations of complex analysis; indeed, if instead of (11) we take

$\dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y} = -\dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial x}. \tag{18}$

then (10) and (18) are in fact a Cauchy-Riemann system for $\alpha + i \beta$, which is then holomorphic. Indeed, it follows from (10) and (18) that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ are harmonic:

$\dfrac{\partial}{\partial x} \dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial x} = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial x} \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial y} = \dfrac{\partial}{\partial y} \dfrac{\partial \beta}{\partial x} = -\dfrac{\partial}{\partial y} \dfrac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y}, \tag{19}$

that is,

$\nabla^2 \alpha = 0, \tag{20}$

with a similar derivation holding to show that $\beta$ obeys

$\nabla^2 \beta = 0. \tag{21}$

However, it the absence of the "$-$" sign occurring in (18), i.e. when (10) holds instead, there seems to be no analog of these facts for the resulting (hyperbolic) PDEs.

Finally, we note that $\alpha$ and $\beta$ also obey the equation (2); to see this, simply take $\partial / \partial x$ or $\partial / \partial y$ of that equation.

$\endgroup$
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Excellent answer, +1. The Cauchy Riemann equations can be derived as a consequence of Stokes’ theorem which applies here. Problem 4-33 in Calculus on Manifolds (Spivak) explains how. $\endgroup$ – Mathemagical Jan 16 '18 at 2:57
  • $\begingroup$ @Mathemagical: yes I'm aware of how Stokes' leads to Cauchy-Riemann. Are you saying that Stoke's may be used in a similar way here? $\endgroup$ – Robert Lewis Jan 16 '18 at 7:31
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ No. I said it because I thought you may not have been aware. Because of your comment noting a strong resemblance without mentioning one can be derived from another. $\endgroup$ – Mathemagical Jan 16 '18 at 7:46
  • $\begingroup$ @Mathemagical: Got it. I had to stop typing someplace . . . ;) $\endgroup$ – Robert Lewis Jan 16 '18 at 7:56
3
$\begingroup$

I believe the second equation required is $$\frac{\partial \alpha}{\partial y}=\frac{\partial \beta}{\partial x}$$by symmetry of mixed partials.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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