The discussion revolves around solving a second-order nonlinear ordinary differential equation related to a calculus problem involving a dog chasing a postman. Participants suggest simplifying the equation by consolidating variables and using substitutions for derivatives. A method is proposed where the equation is transformed, variables are separated, and integration is performed to derive an implicit solution. Numerical solutions using Mathematica are also discussed, comparing the analytic and numerical results to validate the approach. The conversation emphasizes the complexity of the equation and the potential for alternative solving methods.
#1
dimension10
371
0
I was trying to solve a calculus problem (about the equation of the curve traced by a dog chasing a postman) and I came across the following equation. I would like to know how to solve it.
I was trying to solve a calculus problem (about the equation of the curve traced by a dog chasing a postman) and I came across the following equation. I would like to know how to solve it.
You have got to remove all that clutter. It just makes it way more confussing. And what's with all those extra letters. Need to absorb them into one another for now. How about start with writing it as:
See what I mean?
Now, itsn't that an equation with the independent variable missing? You know the kind where you let:
\frac{dy}{dx}=p
\frac{d^2y}{dx^2}=p\frac{dp}{dy}
Now, make all those substitutions, solve it for p in terms of y, and then integrate one more time.
Last edited:
#3
dimension10
371
0
jackmell said:
You have got to remove all that clutter. It just makes it way more confussing. And what's with all those extra letters. Need to absorb them into one another for now. How about start with writing it as:
and we can check this numerically in Mathematica by first solving the IVP numerically, then integrate our analytic solution numerically and compare the two. Note in the Table command below, I implicitly "invert" the function h(y) by reversing the calculated values {t(y),y}:
and we can check this numerically in Mathematica by first solving the IVP numerically, then integrate our analytic solution numerically and compare the two. Note in the Table command below, I implicitly "invert" the function h(y) by reversing the calculated values {t(y),y}: