Calculating the derivative of a one-dimensional ODE
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
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
differential-equations proof-verification partial-derivative
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
|
show 4 more comments
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
|
show 4 more comments
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
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, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.
add a comment |
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
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, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.
add a comment |
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, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.
add a comment |
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, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.
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, $frac{partialphi}{partial{x_0}}(t,x_0)=expBig(int_0^t{f'(phi(s,x_0))ds}Big)$.
answered yesterday
Axion004
269212
269212
add a comment |
add a comment |
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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
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
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
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