Calculating the derivative of a one-dimensional ODE












0















Let $phi(t, x_0)$ be a solution of the one-dimensional differential equation
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
with $phi(0, x_0) = x_0$. Show that its derivative $frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0)$ is given by
$$frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0) = exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$




Here in my proposed solution.



By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have



$$phi(t, x_0)=x_0 + int_{0}^{t}f(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



because $frac{partial{phi}}{partial t}(t, x_0)=f(phi(t, x_0))$ and $phi(0, x_0)=x_0$.



If we differentiate this solution with respect to $x_0$, we obtain via the chain rule that



$$frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))
cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$$



Let $$z(t)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)$$



Then,



$$z(0)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(0, x_0)=1$$



by the analysis above. Therefore, if we differentiate $z$ with respect to $t$, we find that



begin{equation}
begin{split}
z'(t) & = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)\
& = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)
end{split}
end{equation}



We do not have an explicit solution to $phi(t,x_0)$, but the above equation tells us that $z(t)$ solves the following differential equation,



$$z'(t)= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Therefore,



$$frac{dz}{dt}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Rearranging terms produces



$$frac{1}{z(t)}{dz}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0))dt$$



Hence,



$$ln(z(t))= int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



And taking the exponential of both sides produces



$$z(t)= exp Big(int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$



As $z(t)=frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$, we are done.



I'm not certain if there is a more direct approach. Please let me know if the solution can be improved.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Could you correct the missing partial derivative in the chain rule application and regard that $f$ has the variable $x$, thus its derivative is for $x$, not $x_0$? Btw., exponentiation is different from multiplying with $e$.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:25












  • I'm not sure what is wrong with the partial derivative. Does $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x}(s, x_0)ds$ need to be changed to $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$?
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:40










  • Yes, that too, but on the left side the derivative is missing.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:52










  • Yes, I had that correct in my original solution and forgot to write it down. I don't see why I would need to write $frac{partial {f}}{partial x}$ instead of $frac{partial {f}}{partial x_0}$, as $f(phi(s, x_0))$ is being differentiated with respect to $x_0$.
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:59










  • Why not to differentiate your equation directly? $dot x=f(x)implies frac{d}{dt}frac{partial x}{partial x_0}=f'(x)frac{partial x }{partial x_0}$, which immediately yields the required conclusion?
    – Artem
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:18
















0















Let $phi(t, x_0)$ be a solution of the one-dimensional differential equation
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
with $phi(0, x_0) = x_0$. Show that its derivative $frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0)$ is given by
$$frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0) = exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$




Here in my proposed solution.



By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have



$$phi(t, x_0)=x_0 + int_{0}^{t}f(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



because $frac{partial{phi}}{partial t}(t, x_0)=f(phi(t, x_0))$ and $phi(0, x_0)=x_0$.



If we differentiate this solution with respect to $x_0$, we obtain via the chain rule that



$$frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))
cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$$



Let $$z(t)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)$$



Then,



$$z(0)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(0, x_0)=1$$



by the analysis above. Therefore, if we differentiate $z$ with respect to $t$, we find that



begin{equation}
begin{split}
z'(t) & = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)\
& = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)
end{split}
end{equation}



We do not have an explicit solution to $phi(t,x_0)$, but the above equation tells us that $z(t)$ solves the following differential equation,



$$z'(t)= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Therefore,



$$frac{dz}{dt}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Rearranging terms produces



$$frac{1}{z(t)}{dz}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0))dt$$



Hence,



$$ln(z(t))= int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



And taking the exponential of both sides produces



$$z(t)= exp Big(int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$



As $z(t)=frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$, we are done.



I'm not certain if there is a more direct approach. Please let me know if the solution can be improved.










share|cite|improve this question
























  • Could you correct the missing partial derivative in the chain rule application and regard that $f$ has the variable $x$, thus its derivative is for $x$, not $x_0$? Btw., exponentiation is different from multiplying with $e$.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:25












  • I'm not sure what is wrong with the partial derivative. Does $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x}(s, x_0)ds$ need to be changed to $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$?
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:40










  • Yes, that too, but on the left side the derivative is missing.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:52










  • Yes, I had that correct in my original solution and forgot to write it down. I don't see why I would need to write $frac{partial {f}}{partial x}$ instead of $frac{partial {f}}{partial x_0}$, as $f(phi(s, x_0))$ is being differentiated with respect to $x_0$.
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:59










  • Why not to differentiate your equation directly? $dot x=f(x)implies frac{d}{dt}frac{partial x}{partial x_0}=f'(x)frac{partial x }{partial x_0}$, which immediately yields the required conclusion?
    – Artem
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:18














0












0








0








Let $phi(t, x_0)$ be a solution of the one-dimensional differential equation
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
with $phi(0, x_0) = x_0$. Show that its derivative $frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0)$ is given by
$$frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0) = exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$




Here in my proposed solution.



By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have



$$phi(t, x_0)=x_0 + int_{0}^{t}f(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



because $frac{partial{phi}}{partial t}(t, x_0)=f(phi(t, x_0))$ and $phi(0, x_0)=x_0$.



If we differentiate this solution with respect to $x_0$, we obtain via the chain rule that



$$frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))
cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$$



Let $$z(t)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)$$



Then,



$$z(0)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(0, x_0)=1$$



by the analysis above. Therefore, if we differentiate $z$ with respect to $t$, we find that



begin{equation}
begin{split}
z'(t) & = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)\
& = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)
end{split}
end{equation}



We do not have an explicit solution to $phi(t,x_0)$, but the above equation tells us that $z(t)$ solves the following differential equation,



$$z'(t)= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Therefore,



$$frac{dz}{dt}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Rearranging terms produces



$$frac{1}{z(t)}{dz}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0))dt$$



Hence,



$$ln(z(t))= int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



And taking the exponential of both sides produces



$$z(t)= exp Big(int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$



As $z(t)=frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$, we are done.



I'm not certain if there is a more direct approach. Please let me know if the solution can be improved.










share|cite|improve this question
















Let $phi(t, x_0)$ be a solution of the one-dimensional differential equation
$$dot{x}= f(x),$$
with $phi(0, x_0) = x_0$. Show that its derivative $frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0)$ is given by
$$frac{partial}{partial x_0}phi(t, x_0) = exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$




Here in my proposed solution.



By the fundamental theorem of calculus, we have



$$phi(t, x_0)=x_0 + int_{0}^{t}f(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



because $frac{partial{phi}}{partial t}(t, x_0)=f(phi(t, x_0))$ and $phi(0, x_0)=x_0$.



If we differentiate this solution with respect to $x_0$, we obtain via the chain rule that



$$frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))
cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$$



Let $$z(t)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)$$



Then,



$$z(0)= frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(0, x_0)=1$$



by the analysis above. Therefore, if we differentiate $z$ with respect to $t$, we find that



begin{equation}
begin{split}
z'(t) & = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)\
& = frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)
end{split}
end{equation}



We do not have an explicit solution to $phi(t,x_0)$, but the above equation tells us that $z(t)$ solves the following differential equation,



$$z'(t)= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Therefore,



$$frac{dz}{dt}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0)) cdot z(t)$$



Rearranging terms produces



$$frac{1}{z(t)}{dz}= frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(t, x_0))dt$$



Hence,



$$ln(z(t))= int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))ds$$



And taking the exponential of both sides produces



$$z(t)= exp Big(int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$$



As $z(t)=frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(t, x_0)=exp Big(int_{0}^{t}f'(phi(s, x_0))dsBig)$, we are done.



I'm not certain if there is a more direct approach. Please let me know if the solution can be improved.







differential-equations proof-verification partial-derivative






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Dec 20 '18 at 19:56

























asked Dec 20 '18 at 18:55









Axion004

269212




269212












  • Could you correct the missing partial derivative in the chain rule application and regard that $f$ has the variable $x$, thus its derivative is for $x$, not $x_0$? Btw., exponentiation is different from multiplying with $e$.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:25












  • I'm not sure what is wrong with the partial derivative. Does $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x}(s, x_0)ds$ need to be changed to $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$?
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:40










  • Yes, that too, but on the left side the derivative is missing.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:52










  • Yes, I had that correct in my original solution and forgot to write it down. I don't see why I would need to write $frac{partial {f}}{partial x}$ instead of $frac{partial {f}}{partial x_0}$, as $f(phi(s, x_0))$ is being differentiated with respect to $x_0$.
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:59










  • Why not to differentiate your equation directly? $dot x=f(x)implies frac{d}{dt}frac{partial x}{partial x_0}=f'(x)frac{partial x }{partial x_0}$, which immediately yields the required conclusion?
    – Artem
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:18


















  • Could you correct the missing partial derivative in the chain rule application and regard that $f$ has the variable $x$, thus its derivative is for $x$, not $x_0$? Btw., exponentiation is different from multiplying with $e$.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:25












  • I'm not sure what is wrong with the partial derivative. Does $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x}(s, x_0)ds$ need to be changed to $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$?
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:40










  • Yes, that too, but on the left side the derivative is missing.
    – LutzL
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:52










  • Yes, I had that correct in my original solution and forgot to write it down. I don't see why I would need to write $frac{partial {f}}{partial x}$ instead of $frac{partial {f}}{partial x_0}$, as $f(phi(s, x_0))$ is being differentiated with respect to $x_0$.
    – Axion004
    Dec 20 '18 at 19:59










  • Why not to differentiate your equation directly? $dot x=f(x)implies frac{d}{dt}frac{partial x}{partial x_0}=f'(x)frac{partial x }{partial x_0}$, which immediately yields the required conclusion?
    – Artem
    Dec 20 '18 at 20:18
















Could you correct the missing partial derivative in the chain rule application and regard that $f$ has the variable $x$, thus its derivative is for $x$, not $x_0$? Btw., exponentiation is different from multiplying with $e$.
– LutzL
Dec 20 '18 at 19:25






Could you correct the missing partial derivative in the chain rule application and regard that $f$ has the variable $x$, thus its derivative is for $x$, not $x_0$? Btw., exponentiation is different from multiplying with $e$.
– LutzL
Dec 20 '18 at 19:25














I'm not sure what is wrong with the partial derivative. Does $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x}(s, x_0)ds$ need to be changed to $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$?
– Axion004
Dec 20 '18 at 19:40




I'm not sure what is wrong with the partial derivative. Does $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x_0}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x}(s, x_0)ds$ need to be changed to $phi(t, x_0)=1 + int_{0}^{t}frac{partial{f}}{partial{x}}(phi(s, x_0)) cdot frac{partial{phi}}{partial x_0}(s, x_0)ds$?
– Axion004
Dec 20 '18 at 19:40












Yes, that too, but on the left side the derivative is missing.
– LutzL
Dec 20 '18 at 19:52




Yes, that too, but on the left side the derivative is missing.
– LutzL
Dec 20 '18 at 19:52












Yes, I had that correct in my original solution and forgot to write it down. I don't see why I would need to write $frac{partial {f}}{partial x}$ instead of $frac{partial {f}}{partial x_0}$, as $f(phi(s, x_0))$ is being differentiated with respect to $x_0$.
– Axion004
Dec 20 '18 at 19:59




Yes, I had that correct in my original solution and forgot to write it down. I don't see why I would need to write $frac{partial {f}}{partial x}$ instead of $frac{partial {f}}{partial x_0}$, as $f(phi(s, x_0))$ is being differentiated with respect to $x_0$.
– Axion004
Dec 20 '18 at 19:59












Why not to differentiate your equation directly? $dot x=f(x)implies frac{d}{dt}frac{partial x}{partial x_0}=f'(x)frac{partial x }{partial x_0}$, which immediately yields the required conclusion?
– Artem
Dec 20 '18 at 20:18




Why not to differentiate your equation directly? $dot x=f(x)implies frac{d}{dt}frac{partial x}{partial x_0}=f'(x)frac{partial x }{partial x_0}$, which immediately yields the required conclusion?
– Artem
Dec 20 '18 at 20:18










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















1














From the comments above, here is a shorter answer:



As $dot{x}=f(x) implies frac{dx}{dt}=f(x)$, we can differentiate both sides with respect to $x_0$ to form



$$frac{d}{dt}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=frac{df(x)}{dx}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=f'(x)frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}$$



Therefore, as $phi(t,x_0)$ is a solution to the ODE, we know that $x(t)=phi(t,x_0)$. Hence,



$$frac{d}{dt}frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=f'(phi(t,x_0))frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$$



Now, let $z(t)=frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$. Then,



$$frac{d}{dt}z(t)=f'(phi(t,x_0))z(t)$$



So,



$$frac{1}{z(t)}d{z(t)}=f'(phi(t,x_0))dt$$



Hence, by the fundamental theorem of calculus,



$$ln(z(t))=int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}$$



Therefore, if we take the exponential of both sides,



$$z(t)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$$



So, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.






share|cite|improve this answer





















    Your Answer





    StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
    return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
    StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
    StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
    });
    });
    }, "mathjax-editing");

    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
    });


    }
    });














    draft saved

    draft discarded


















    StackExchange.ready(
    function () {
    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047862%2fcalculating-the-derivative-of-a-one-dimensional-ode%23new-answer', 'question_page');
    }
    );

    Post as a guest















    Required, but never shown

























    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes








    1 Answer
    1






    active

    oldest

    votes









    active

    oldest

    votes






    active

    oldest

    votes









    1














    From the comments above, here is a shorter answer:



    As $dot{x}=f(x) implies frac{dx}{dt}=f(x)$, we can differentiate both sides with respect to $x_0$ to form



    $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=frac{df(x)}{dx}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=f'(x)frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}$$



    Therefore, as $phi(t,x_0)$ is a solution to the ODE, we know that $x(t)=phi(t,x_0)$. Hence,



    $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=f'(phi(t,x_0))frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$$



    Now, let $z(t)=frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$. Then,



    $$frac{d}{dt}z(t)=f'(phi(t,x_0))z(t)$$



    So,



    $$frac{1}{z(t)}d{z(t)}=f'(phi(t,x_0))dt$$



    Hence, by the fundamental theorem of calculus,



    $$ln(z(t))=int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}$$



    Therefore, if we take the exponential of both sides,



    $$z(t)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$$



    So, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.






    share|cite|improve this answer


























      1














      From the comments above, here is a shorter answer:



      As $dot{x}=f(x) implies frac{dx}{dt}=f(x)$, we can differentiate both sides with respect to $x_0$ to form



      $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=frac{df(x)}{dx}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=f'(x)frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}$$



      Therefore, as $phi(t,x_0)$ is a solution to the ODE, we know that $x(t)=phi(t,x_0)$. Hence,



      $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=f'(phi(t,x_0))frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$$



      Now, let $z(t)=frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$. Then,



      $$frac{d}{dt}z(t)=f'(phi(t,x_0))z(t)$$



      So,



      $$frac{1}{z(t)}d{z(t)}=f'(phi(t,x_0))dt$$



      Hence, by the fundamental theorem of calculus,



      $$ln(z(t))=int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}$$



      Therefore, if we take the exponential of both sides,



      $$z(t)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$$



      So, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.






      share|cite|improve this answer
























        1












        1








        1






        From the comments above, here is a shorter answer:



        As $dot{x}=f(x) implies frac{dx}{dt}=f(x)$, we can differentiate both sides with respect to $x_0$ to form



        $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=frac{df(x)}{dx}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=f'(x)frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}$$



        Therefore, as $phi(t,x_0)$ is a solution to the ODE, we know that $x(t)=phi(t,x_0)$. Hence,



        $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=f'(phi(t,x_0))frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$$



        Now, let $z(t)=frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$. Then,



        $$frac{d}{dt}z(t)=f'(phi(t,x_0))z(t)$$



        So,



        $$frac{1}{z(t)}d{z(t)}=f'(phi(t,x_0))dt$$



        Hence, by the fundamental theorem of calculus,



        $$ln(z(t))=int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}$$



        Therefore, if we take the exponential of both sides,



        $$z(t)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$$



        So, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.






        share|cite|improve this answer












        From the comments above, here is a shorter answer:



        As $dot{x}=f(x) implies frac{dx}{dt}=f(x)$, we can differentiate both sides with respect to $x_0$ to form



        $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=frac{df(x)}{dx}frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}=f'(x)frac{partial{x}}{partial{x_0}}$$



        Therefore, as $phi(t,x_0)$ is a solution to the ODE, we know that $x(t)=phi(t,x_0)$. Hence,



        $$frac{d}{dt}frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=f'(phi(t,x_0))frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$$



        Now, let $z(t)=frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)$. Then,



        $$frac{d}{dt}z(t)=f'(phi(t,x_0))z(t)$$



        So,



        $$frac{1}{z(t)}d{z(t)}=f'(phi(t,x_0))dt$$



        Hence, by the fundamental theorem of calculus,



        $$ln(z(t))=int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}$$



        Therefore, if we take the exponential of both sides,



        $$z(t)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$$



        So, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.







        share|cite|improve this answer












        share|cite|improve this answer



        share|cite|improve this answer










        answered yesterday









        Axion004

        269212




        269212






























            draft saved

            draft discarded




















































            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.





            Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


            Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


            • 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.


            To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




            draft saved


            draft discarded














            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3047862%2fcalculating-the-derivative-of-a-one-dimensional-ode%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            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







            Popular posts from this blog

            Mario Kart Wii

            What does “Dominus providebit” mean?

            Antonio Litta Visconti Arese