Take the 2-minute tour ×
MathOverflow is a question and answer site for professional mathematicians. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Let $\phi(x,t)$ be smooth function.

Let $\zeta= x-t$ and $\eta= x+t$. $u=\phi_\zeta$, $v= \phi_\eta$.

Let $u$, $v$ satisfies following equations:

1- $$u_\eta- v_\zeta= 0$$ $$v^2u_\zeta-(1+2uv)u_\eta+ u^2v_\eta=0$$

The roles of dependent and independent variables are then interchanged to give

2-$$\zeta_v-\eta_u=0$$ $$v^2\eta_v+(1+2uv)\zeta_v+u^2\zeta_u=0$$

Can someone please help me to find the required transformation for getting set 2 from set-1. Is this an example of hodographic transformation. Can someone be precise in explaining this transformation.

share|improve this question

2 Answers 2

up vote 7 down vote accepted

Another way to understand this 'transformation' is to think in terms of differential forms. Let $(u,v,\eta,\zeta)$ be coordinates on $\mathbb{R}^4$ and consider the pair of $2$-forms $$ \Upsilon_1 = du\wedge d\zeta + dv\wedge d\eta \quad\text{and}\quad \Upsilon_2 = v^2 du\wedge d\eta + (1{+}2uv)\ du\wedge d\zeta - u^2 dv\wedge d\zeta. $$ A surface $S\subset\mathbb{R}^4$ that can be written as a graph in the form $\bigl(u,v,\eta(u,v),\zeta(u,v)\bigr)$ is an integral surface of these two $2$-forms (i.e., they pull back to $S$ to become $0$) if and only if the functions $\bigl(\eta(u,v),\zeta(u,v)\bigr)$ satisfy your second set of equations. If the surface can also be written as a graph in the form $\bigl(u(\eta,\zeta),v(\eta,\zeta),\eta,\zeta\bigr)$, then it is an integral surface of these two $2$-forms if and only if $\bigl(u(\eta,\zeta),v(\eta,\zeta)\bigr)$ satisfy your first set of equations. In that sense, the two equation systems are equivalent. (Note that the forms $\Upsilon_i$ are linear in $\eta$ and $\zeta$, so one can 'add' solution surfaces to obtain new solution surfaces when they satisfy $du\wedge dv\not=0$.

Thus, each set of equations defines the 'same' set of integral surfaces of the pair of $2$-forms. In some sense, you should regard an integral surface of these $2$-forms as a 'generalized' solution to either set of equations.

Also, looked at in this way, you see that there is no actual `transformation' going on, in the sense that there is no mapping. You are merely changing which variables you want to regard as 'independent', so it's really a change in the way you are describing the same class of surfaces.

Remark: While you didn't ask, I should point out that the type analysis of this system shows that it's elliptic in the region where $1+4uv<0$ and hyperbolic in the region where $1+4uv>0$.

share|improve this answer
@Robert Bryant sir, Thanks for the giving a nice interpretation. –  zapkm Apr 5 '12 at 2:14

Forget about $x,t$. Consider a $C^1$ mapping $\phi:(\zeta,\eta)\mapsto (u,v)$. Locally if $|d\phi|\neq 0$ we can invert it. Let the inverse be $\psi: (u,v)\mapsto (\zeta,\eta)$, so $\psi\circ\phi(\zeta,\eta) = (\zeta,\eta)$ and $\phi\circ\psi(u,v) = (u,v)$.

An elementary computation shows that the Jacobian matrices of $\phi$ and $\psi$ are inverses. That is, evaluated at a fixed $u,v,\zeta,\eta$ where $(u,v) = \phi(\zeta,\eta)$,

$$ \begin{pmatrix} \partial_1\psi^1 & \partial_1\psi^2 \newline \partial_2\psi^1 & \partial_2\psi^2\end{pmatrix}^{-1} = \begin{pmatrix} \partial_1\phi^1 & \partial_1\phi^2 \newline \partial_2\phi^1 & \partial_2 \phi^2\end{pmatrix} $$

For disambiguation: write the function $\phi = (U,V)(\zeta,\eta)$ and the function $\psi = (Z,N)(u,v)$. The above implies

$$ \begin{pmatrix} U_\zeta & V_\zeta \newline U_\eta & V_\eta\end{pmatrix} = \frac{1}{Z_u N_v - Z_v N_u} \begin{pmatrix} N_v & - N_u \newline -Z_v & Z_u\end{pmatrix} $$

Your system (1) gives $U_\eta = V_\zeta$ which from the matrix inequality immediately implies that $Z_v = N_u$, which is the first equation of system (2).

Using that $Z_uN_v - Z_vN_u = |d\psi| \neq 0$, the equality of the matrix components also gives you that the second equation of (2) is obtained from the second equation of (1) by the replacement $U_\zeta \to N_v$, $V_\zeta \to -N_u$, $U_\eta \to -Z_v$ and $V_\eta \to Z_u$.

Notice that this works because (a) we have a 2-by-2 system and (b) the system (1) is quasilinear. If it were genuinely nonlinear, we cannot "factor" out from the equation the common factor of $|d\psi|$ to end up with a purely linear equation.

And yes, this is an example of the hodographic transformation. In general the same procedure works for any quasilinear system of first order partial differential equations with 2 dependent and 2 independent variables.

share|improve this answer
For a scalar first order quasilinear PDE in arbitrary dimensions, the method of characteristics bears some philosophical similarity to the hodograph methods. –  Willie Wong Apr 4 '12 at 12:23
@Wilie wong, Thanks a lot for explaining. –  zapkm Apr 5 '12 at 2:12

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

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