# Hard partial differentiation q

Watch
Announcements
#1
If anyone can kindly take a long time to work this out and see if I done it correctly I would appreciate it so much.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
6 years ago
#2
(Original post by cooldudeman)
If anyone can kindly take a long time to work this out and see if I done it correctly I would appreciate it so much.

Posted from TSR Mobile
Gosh I now know why I do not teach... So I do not have to mark.
Only joking

These questions are tasty I will steal them for my own use.
I will attempt them and get back to you but I do not know if it will be tonight
0
#3
(Original post by TeeEm)
Gosh I now know why I do not teach... So I do not have to mark.
Only joking

These questions are tasty I will steal them for my own use.
I will attempt them and get back to you but I do not know if it will be tonight
Thanks that will be great. These questions are ridiculous I think. So long.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
6 years ago
#4
(Original post by cooldudeman)
If anyone can kindly take a long time to work this out and see if I done it correctly I would appreciate it so much.

Posted from TSR Mobile
I have done the first one. It took me ages because I have been doing maths all day ...

I did not look in your solution in detail but I did it my way ( the long way becuase I have forgotten how to use Jacobians to invert functions)

mine simplifies to dz/du-dz/dv=0

0
6 years ago
#5
(Original post by cooldudeman)
Thanks that will be great. These questions are ridiculous I think. So long.

Posted from TSR Mobile

(Original post by TeeEm)
I have done the first one. It took me ages because I have been doing maths all day ...

I did not look in your solution in detail but I did it my way ( the long way becuase I have forgotten how to use Jacobians to invert functions)

mine simplifies to dz/du-dz/dv=0

I did it now in "superneat" ( two pages with full steps) and I got dz/du-dz/dv=0 again.

I am certain this requires Jacobians which I have forgotten how to use. I do not think is an accident that the Jacobian of such disgusting pair of transformation equations simplify to 1.

[if you do not get a sensible answer PM me with an e-mail and i will attach PDF]
0
#6
(Original post by TeeEm)
I did it now in "superneat" ( two pages with full steps) and I got dz/du-dz/dv=0 again.

I am certain this requires Jacobians which I have forgotten how to use. I do not think is an accident that the Jacobian of such disgusting pair of transformation equations simplify to 1.

[if you do not get a sensible answer PM me with an e-mail and i will attach PDF]
I dont think we are meant to solve the equation... it doesn't say so in the question anyway. Ive never heard of jacobian. I think we can just leave it as in terms of u and v.

Thanks in advance for the email.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
6 years ago
#7
(Original post by cooldudeman)
I dont think we are meant to solve the equation... it doesn't say so in the question anyway. Ive never heard of jacobian. I think we can just leave it as in terms of u and v.

Thanks in advance for the email.

Posted from TSR Mobile
you are not meant to solve the PDE I agree.
but Jacobians are used for this type of job...
0
#8
(Original post by TeeEm)
you are not meant to solve the PDE I agree.
but Jacobians are used for this type of job...
Oh I see. Anyways thanks so much for the email. Just received it. Goodnight.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
6 years ago
#9
(Original post by cooldudeman)
Oh I see. Anyways thanks so much for the email. Just received it. Goodnight.

Posted from TSR Mobile

pleasure
0
6 years ago
#10
This is non urgent

Can somebody check in the next few days the question attached

I found the PDE reduces to dz/du = dz/dv (bit unexpected)

PDE.pdf
0
6 years ago
#11
(Original post by TeeEm)
This is non urgent

Can somebody check in the next few days the question attached

I found the PDE reduces to dz/du = dz/dv (bit unexpected)

PDE.pdf
Seems fairly plausible. Didn't really work through it but doesn't seem that unexpected.
0
6 years ago
#12
(Original post by natninja)
Seems fairly plausible. Didn't really work through it but doesn't seem that unexpected.
If you can please check it in the next few days because I have forgotten some of this stuff.
I will be grateful
0
#13
(Original post by TeeEm)
If you can please check it in the next few days because I have forgotten some of this stuff.
I will be grateful
Also in the pdf, how come u did for page two, this on pic

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
6 years ago
#14
(Original post by cooldudeman)
Also in the pdf, how come u did for page two, this on pic

Posted from TSR Mobile
I am not sure which question are you referring too

chain rule works with partial and full derivatives
0
6 years ago
#15
(Original post by cooldudeman)
Also in the pdf, how come u did for page two, this on pic

Posted from TSR Mobile
Sorry I just realised what you are asking. Does this help?

IMG.pdf
0
#16
(Original post by TeeEm)
Sorry I just realised what you are asking. Does this help?

IMG.pdf
Ok thanks.

Posted from TSR Mobile
0
X

new posts
Back
to top
Latest
My Feed

### Oops, nobody has postedin the last few hours.

Why not re-start the conversation?

see more

### See more of what you like onThe Student Room

You can personalise what you see on TSR. Tell us a little about yourself to get started.

### Poll

Join the discussion

#### Are you tempted to change your firm university choice on A-level results day?

Yes, I'll try and go to a uni higher up the league tables (42)
27.63%
Yes, there is a uni that I prefer and I'll fit in better (14)
9.21%
No I am happy with my choice (85)
55.92%
I'm using Clearing when I have my exam results (11)
7.24%