Timeline for IBVP with transformed boundary conditions
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 16:05 | vote | accept | Comic Book Guy | ||
| Jun 16, 2016 at 14:09 | answer | added | Willie Wong | timeline score: 2 | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 13:51 | history | edited | Willie Wong | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed the stupid way of writing initial conditions
|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 10:49 | history | edited | Comic Book Guy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
fixed Grammer
|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 10:29 | comment | added | Comic Book Guy | @IgorKhavkine, As per your suggestion, I have added the equations corresponding to my problem, Please have a look. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 10:28 | history | edited | Comic Book Guy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
Added the equation details
|
| Jun 16, 2016 at 8:26 | comment | added | Igor Khavkine | if you post the equations that you are working with, maybe someone could say something more specific. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 7:47 | comment | added | Comic Book Guy | @IgorKhavkine, Thank you very much i will try that. I will also very much like to avoid getting the time dependency in there, but without using time as part of the transformation, i can not reduce the pde to such a form. | |
| Jun 16, 2016 at 6:39 | comment | added | Igor Khavkine | Keep in mind this kind of separation of variables ansatz doesn't work for all kinds of equations (the equation has to be somehow special). Analogously, the separation of variables ansatz doesn't work for all kinds of boundary conditions (the boundary condition has to be somehow special as well). I think here, you want the boundary conditions on $w(x,t) - Mt-N$ to be independent of $t$. Just a guess, but perhaps you can generalize your ansatz to $w(x,t) = Mt + N + \phi(x) + \psi(x,t)$, where the purpose of $\psi(x,t)$ is precisely to get the boundary conditions into an acceptable form. | |
| Jun 15, 2016 at 23:40 | history | asked | Comic Book Guy | CC BY-SA 3.0 |