sponsoredwalk
|
Registered User
|
|
|
Feb 24 |
awarded | ● Editor |
|
Feb 24 |
revised |
Integration of Binomial Differentials Proof/Reference deleted 10 characters in body |
|
Feb 24 |
asked | Integration of Binomial Differentials Proof/Reference |
|
Feb 21 |
comment |
First Order PDE Solution Method Issues that there is a huge distinction & that this simply has to have been completely glossed over in most of the literature, & that I'm probably not going to get an answer to this. I do appreciate that the pictue you've described is the way one thinks about Cauchy's method of characteristics but that interpretation doesn't explain the other interpretations unfortunately. |
|
Feb 21 |
comment |
First Order PDE Solution Method Issues Thanks very much for the response, if I am to take from your answer that I was correct about the "dishonesty involved" in thinking of the notation as anything other than symbolic notation it doesn't explain why dishonest interpretations give general solutions while correct ones give only complete integrals. Also that interpretation doesn't explain whether Chapit's method is a dishonest exposition of Cauchy's method in classical books, & based on the abstract of [this](jmp.aip.org/resource/1/jmapaq/v24/i3/…) article I'm almost convinced |
|
Feb 21 |
awarded | ● Supporter |
|
Feb 20 |
awarded | ● Student |
|
Feb 20 |
asked | First Order PDE Solution Method Issues |
