Quadratic Formula With Independent and Dependent Variables












4














Given the differential equation $dy/dt = (y + t)^2$, we can apply the u-substitution $u = y + t$ to arrive at the separable differential equation $du/dt = u^2 + 1$. This separates to $1/(u^2 + 1) du = dt$ which integrates to (EDIT: As LutzL has pointed out, I integrated incorrectly. However, correcting it would eclipse potentially interesting part of the question, so I'll leave the mistake) $u^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Reverting the substitution yields $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Note that $y$ is a dependent variable, $t$ is the independent variable, and $C$ is an arbitrary constant.



Is it legal to proceed via the quadratic formula, using the appropriate expressions in terms of $t$ as coefficients? This would look like $y = (-(2t) ± sqrt{(2t)^2 - 4(1)(t^2 + 1 - Ce^t)}) / 2(1)$, which works out to $y = -t ± sqrt{Ce^t - 1}$. However, this practice feels a bit suspect, since in other instances of applying the quadratic formula, there is no dependency between the variable and its coefficients, whereas here there is. Is this a legal and correct approach to the problem?



Secondly, suppose a similar problem yielded $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 − Ce^y = 0$, where $y$ is still a dependent variable, $t$ is still the independent variable, and $C$ is still an arbitrary constant. Would it be legal to solve for $t$ using the quadratic formula using the appropriate expressions in terms of $y$ as coefficients?






differential-equations independence constants







share|cite|improve this question





























    4














    Given the differential equation $dy/dt = (y + t)^2$, we can apply the u-substitution $u = y + t$ to arrive at the separable differential equation $du/dt = u^2 + 1$. This separates to $1/(u^2 + 1) du = dt$ which integrates to (EDIT: As LutzL has pointed out, I integrated incorrectly. However, correcting it would eclipse potentially interesting part of the question, so I'll leave the mistake) $u^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Reverting the substitution yields $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Note that $y$ is a dependent variable, $t$ is the independent variable, and $C$ is an arbitrary constant.



    Is it legal to proceed via the quadratic formula, using the appropriate expressions in terms of $t$ as coefficients? This would look like $y = (-(2t) ± sqrt{(2t)^2 - 4(1)(t^2 + 1 - Ce^t)}) / 2(1)$, which works out to $y = -t ± sqrt{Ce^t - 1}$. However, this practice feels a bit suspect, since in other instances of applying the quadratic formula, there is no dependency between the variable and its coefficients, whereas here there is. Is this a legal and correct approach to the problem?



    Secondly, suppose a similar problem yielded $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 − Ce^y = 0$, where $y$ is still a dependent variable, $t$ is still the independent variable, and $C$ is still an arbitrary constant. Would it be legal to solve for $t$ using the quadratic formula using the appropriate expressions in terms of $y$ as coefficients?






    differential-equations independence constants







    share|cite|improve this question



























      4












      4








      4







      Given the differential equation $dy/dt = (y + t)^2$, we can apply the u-substitution $u = y + t$ to arrive at the separable differential equation $du/dt = u^2 + 1$. This separates to $1/(u^2 + 1) du = dt$ which integrates to (EDIT: As LutzL has pointed out, I integrated incorrectly. However, correcting it would eclipse potentially interesting part of the question, so I'll leave the mistake) $u^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Reverting the substitution yields $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Note that $y$ is a dependent variable, $t$ is the independent variable, and $C$ is an arbitrary constant.



      Is it legal to proceed via the quadratic formula, using the appropriate expressions in terms of $t$ as coefficients? This would look like $y = (-(2t) ± sqrt{(2t)^2 - 4(1)(t^2 + 1 - Ce^t)}) / 2(1)$, which works out to $y = -t ± sqrt{Ce^t - 1}$. However, this practice feels a bit suspect, since in other instances of applying the quadratic formula, there is no dependency between the variable and its coefficients, whereas here there is. Is this a legal and correct approach to the problem?



      Secondly, suppose a similar problem yielded $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 − Ce^y = 0$, where $y$ is still a dependent variable, $t$ is still the independent variable, and $C$ is still an arbitrary constant. Would it be legal to solve for $t$ using the quadratic formula using the appropriate expressions in terms of $y$ as coefficients?






      differential-equations independence constants







      share|cite|improve this question















      Given the differential equation $dy/dt = (y + t)^2$, we can apply the u-substitution $u = y + t$ to arrive at the separable differential equation $du/dt = u^2 + 1$. This separates to $1/(u^2 + 1) du = dt$ which integrates to (EDIT: As LutzL has pointed out, I integrated incorrectly. However, correcting it would eclipse potentially interesting part of the question, so I'll leave the mistake) $u^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Reverting the substitution yields $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 - Ce^t = 0$. Note that $y$ is a dependent variable, $t$ is the independent variable, and $C$ is an arbitrary constant.



      Is it legal to proceed via the quadratic formula, using the appropriate expressions in terms of $t$ as coefficients? This would look like $y = (-(2t) ± sqrt{(2t)^2 - 4(1)(t^2 + 1 - Ce^t)}) / 2(1)$, which works out to $y = -t ± sqrt{Ce^t - 1}$. However, this practice feels a bit suspect, since in other instances of applying the quadratic formula, there is no dependency between the variable and its coefficients, whereas here there is. Is this a legal and correct approach to the problem?



      Secondly, suppose a similar problem yielded $y^2 + 2ty + t^2 + 1 − Ce^y = 0$, where $y$ is still a dependent variable, $t$ is still the independent variable, and $C$ is still an arbitrary constant. Would it be legal to solve for $t$ using the quadratic formula using the appropriate expressions in terms of $y$ as coefficients?






      differential-equations independence constants




      differential-equations independence constants






      share|cite|improve this question















      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question








      edited Nov 28 '18 at 21:17

























      asked Nov 28 '18 at 20:48









      user10478

      405211




      405211






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          3














          User Lutzl has addressed an error in the set-up of your question. But in answer to the question itself, yes, you can apply the quadratic formula anytime you have a quadratic expression, so $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^t=0$ implies $y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^t-1}$ and $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0$ implies $t=-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ (the key difference being that you're hard pressed to invert the expression $-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ to get an explicit formula for $y$ as a function of $t$). For that matter, it's even OK (if pointless) to say



          $$y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0implies y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$$



          All you're really doing in any of these is saying



          $$y^2+2ty+t^2=whateverimplies (y+t)^2=whateverimplies y+t=pmsqrt{whatever}$$



          (where that whatever better be nonnegative, unless you're prepared to deal with complex numbers).






          share|cite|improve this answer





























            4














            Your solution is wrong as
            $$
            intfrac{du}{1+u^2}=arctan(u),
            $$
            so that
            $$
            u=tan(t+c),~~ y=tan(t+c)-t.
            $$






            share|cite|improve this answer

















            • 1




              Darn, thanks for catching that. :P I'm going to leave the mistake as is with a note, as correcting it would be harmful to the rest of the question.
              – user10478
              Nov 28 '18 at 21:19











            Your Answer





            StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
            return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
            StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
            StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
            });
            });
            }, "mathjax-editing");

            StackExchange.ready(function() {
            var channelOptions = {
            tags: "".split(" "),
            id: "69"
            };
            initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

            StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
            // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
            if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
            StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
            createEditor();
            });
            }
            else {
            createEditor();
            }
            });

            function createEditor() {
            StackExchange.prepareEditor({
            heartbeatType: 'answer',
            autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
            convertImagesToLinks: true,
            noModals: true,
            showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
            reputationToPostImages: 10,
            bindNavPrevention: true,
            postfix: "",
            imageUploader: {
            brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
            contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
            allowUrls: true
            },
            noCode: true, onDemand: true,
            discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
            ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
            });


            }
            });














            draft saved

            draft discarded


















            StackExchange.ready(
            function () {
            StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017691%2fquadratic-formula-with-independent-and-dependent-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');
            }
            );

            Post as a guest















            Required, but never shown

























            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes








            2 Answers
            2






            active

            oldest

            votes









            active

            oldest

            votes






            active

            oldest

            votes









            3














            User Lutzl has addressed an error in the set-up of your question. But in answer to the question itself, yes, you can apply the quadratic formula anytime you have a quadratic expression, so $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^t=0$ implies $y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^t-1}$ and $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0$ implies $t=-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ (the key difference being that you're hard pressed to invert the expression $-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ to get an explicit formula for $y$ as a function of $t$). For that matter, it's even OK (if pointless) to say



            $$y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0implies y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$$



            All you're really doing in any of these is saying



            $$y^2+2ty+t^2=whateverimplies (y+t)^2=whateverimplies y+t=pmsqrt{whatever}$$



            (where that whatever better be nonnegative, unless you're prepared to deal with complex numbers).






            share|cite|improve this answer


























              3














              User Lutzl has addressed an error in the set-up of your question. But in answer to the question itself, yes, you can apply the quadratic formula anytime you have a quadratic expression, so $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^t=0$ implies $y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^t-1}$ and $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0$ implies $t=-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ (the key difference being that you're hard pressed to invert the expression $-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ to get an explicit formula for $y$ as a function of $t$). For that matter, it's even OK (if pointless) to say



              $$y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0implies y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$$



              All you're really doing in any of these is saying



              $$y^2+2ty+t^2=whateverimplies (y+t)^2=whateverimplies y+t=pmsqrt{whatever}$$



              (where that whatever better be nonnegative, unless you're prepared to deal with complex numbers).






              share|cite|improve this answer
























                3












                3








                3






                User Lutzl has addressed an error in the set-up of your question. But in answer to the question itself, yes, you can apply the quadratic formula anytime you have a quadratic expression, so $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^t=0$ implies $y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^t-1}$ and $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0$ implies $t=-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ (the key difference being that you're hard pressed to invert the expression $-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ to get an explicit formula for $y$ as a function of $t$). For that matter, it's even OK (if pointless) to say



                $$y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0implies y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$$



                All you're really doing in any of these is saying



                $$y^2+2ty+t^2=whateverimplies (y+t)^2=whateverimplies y+t=pmsqrt{whatever}$$



                (where that whatever better be nonnegative, unless you're prepared to deal with complex numbers).






                share|cite|improve this answer












                User Lutzl has addressed an error in the set-up of your question. But in answer to the question itself, yes, you can apply the quadratic formula anytime you have a quadratic expression, so $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^t=0$ implies $y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^t-1}$ and $y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0$ implies $t=-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ (the key difference being that you're hard pressed to invert the expression $-ypmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$ to get an explicit formula for $y$ as a function of $t$). For that matter, it's even OK (if pointless) to say



                $$y^2+2ty+t^2+1-Ce^y=0implies y=-tpmsqrt{Ce^y-1}$$



                All you're really doing in any of these is saying



                $$y^2+2ty+t^2=whateverimplies (y+t)^2=whateverimplies y+t=pmsqrt{whatever}$$



                (where that whatever better be nonnegative, unless you're prepared to deal with complex numbers).







                share|cite|improve this answer












                share|cite|improve this answer



                share|cite|improve this answer










                answered Dec 4 '18 at 0:49









                Barry Cipra

                59.1k653124




                59.1k653124























                    4














                    Your solution is wrong as
                    $$
                    intfrac{du}{1+u^2}=arctan(u),
                    $$
                    so that
                    $$
                    u=tan(t+c),~~ y=tan(t+c)-t.
                    $$






                    share|cite|improve this answer

















                    • 1




                      Darn, thanks for catching that. :P I'm going to leave the mistake as is with a note, as correcting it would be harmful to the rest of the question.
                      – user10478
                      Nov 28 '18 at 21:19
















                    4














                    Your solution is wrong as
                    $$
                    intfrac{du}{1+u^2}=arctan(u),
                    $$
                    so that
                    $$
                    u=tan(t+c),~~ y=tan(t+c)-t.
                    $$






                    share|cite|improve this answer

















                    • 1




                      Darn, thanks for catching that. :P I'm going to leave the mistake as is with a note, as correcting it would be harmful to the rest of the question.
                      – user10478
                      Nov 28 '18 at 21:19














                    4












                    4








                    4






                    Your solution is wrong as
                    $$
                    intfrac{du}{1+u^2}=arctan(u),
                    $$
                    so that
                    $$
                    u=tan(t+c),~~ y=tan(t+c)-t.
                    $$






                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    Your solution is wrong as
                    $$
                    intfrac{du}{1+u^2}=arctan(u),
                    $$
                    so that
                    $$
                    u=tan(t+c),~~ y=tan(t+c)-t.
                    $$







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Nov 28 '18 at 21:09









                    LutzL

                    56.3k42054




                    56.3k42054








                    • 1




                      Darn, thanks for catching that. :P I'm going to leave the mistake as is with a note, as correcting it would be harmful to the rest of the question.
                      – user10478
                      Nov 28 '18 at 21:19














                    • 1




                      Darn, thanks for catching that. :P I'm going to leave the mistake as is with a note, as correcting it would be harmful to the rest of the question.
                      – user10478
                      Nov 28 '18 at 21:19








                    1




                    1




                    Darn, thanks for catching that. :P I'm going to leave the mistake as is with a note, as correcting it would be harmful to the rest of the question.
                    – user10478
                    Nov 28 '18 at 21:19




                    Darn, thanks for catching that. :P I'm going to leave the mistake as is with a note, as correcting it would be harmful to the rest of the question.
                    – user10478
                    Nov 28 '18 at 21:19


















                    draft saved

                    draft discarded




















































                    Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.





                    Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.


                    Please pay close attention to the following guidance:


                    • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

                    But avoid …



                    • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

                    • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


                    To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




                    draft saved


                    draft discarded














                    StackExchange.ready(
                    function () {
                    StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3017691%2fquadratic-formula-with-independent-and-dependent-variables%23new-answer', 'question_page');
                    }
                    );

                    Post as a guest















                    Required, but never shown





















































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown

































                    Required, but never shown














                    Required, but never shown












                    Required, but never shown







                    Required, but never shown







                    -

                    Popular posts from this blog

                    Bundesstraße 106

                    Image
                    Dieser Artikel beschreibt die Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland. Zur gleichnamigen Straße in Österreich siehe Mölltal Straße. Vorlage:Infobox hochrangige Straße/Wartung/DE-B Bundesstraße 106 in Deutschland Karte Basisdaten Betreiber: Deutschland  Bundesrepublik Deutschland Straßenbeginn: Wismar ( 53° 54′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.900536 11.396875 ) Straßenende: Schwerin ( 53° 36′  N , 11° 24′  O 53.592785 11.404892 ) Gesamtlänge: 40,7 km Bundesland: Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Ausbauzustand: zweistreifig [1] Bundesstraße 106 in Schwerin (Umgehungsstraße) Straßenverlauf Land Mecklenburg-Vorpommern Landkreis Nordwestmecklenburg Ortsumgehung Wismar Wallensteingraben über   Dorf Mecklenburg Wallensteingraben Groß Stieten Bad Kleinen OT Niendorf Bahnstrecke Lübeck–Bad Kleinen Zickhusen Lübstorf Klein Trebbow OT Kirch Stück
                    Read more

                    Verónica Boquete

                    Image
                    Verónica Boquete im Trikot der Nationalmannschaft (2013) Personalia Name Verónica Boquete Giadans Geburtstag 9. April 1987 Geburtsort Santiago de Compostela, Spanien Größe 159 cm Position Mittelfeld / Sturm Juniorinnen Jahre Station 2001–2005 Xuventú Aguiño Frauen Jahre Station Spiele (Tore) 1 2005–2008 Prainsa Zaragoza 83 (40) 2008–2010 Espanyol Barcelona 53 (30) 2010 Buffalo Flash 9 0 (9) 2010 Chicago Red Stars 3 0 (1) 2010–2011 Espanyol Barcelona 26 (41) 2011 Philadelphia Independence 13 0 (5) 2011 Energija Woronesch 5 0 (1) 2012–2014 Tyresö FF 39 (14) 2014 Portland Thorns FC 15 0 (4) 2014–2015 1. FFC Frankfurt 23 0 (7) 2015–2016 FC Bayern München 9 0 (0) 2016–2018 Paris Saint-Germain 31 0 (8) 2018 Peking BG Phoenix 2019– Utah Royals FC 0 0 (0) Nationalmannschaft Jahre Auswahl
                    Read more

                    Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten

                    Image
                    Die Lage des Ida-Boy-Ed-Gartens, rot markiert Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten, Blick von der Wakenitzmauer durch das Tor in der Stadtmauer Der Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten ist eine Straße der Lübecker Altstadt. Inhaltsverzeichnis 1 Lage 2 Geschichte 3 Literatur 4 Weblinks Lage | Der etwa 90 Meter lange Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten befindet sich an der nördlichen Spitze der Altstadtinsel, vor dem Burgtor. Die in einem Bogen durch eine Grünanlage hangaufwärts führende Straße verbindet die Wakenitzmauer mit der Burgtorbrücke. Geschichte | Der heutige Ida-Boy-Ed-Garten wurde ursprünglich als Verlängerung der Wakenitzmauer angelegt. 1903 wurde in den erhaltenen Teil der mittelalterlichen Stadtmauer, an dem die Wakenitzmauer bei der Einmündung der Kaiserstraße begann, ein Tor mit einem großen Bogen für die Durchführung der Straße und zwei kleineren seitlichen Öffnungen für Fußgänger gebrochen, um für die neu errichteten Wohnhäuser in diesem Bereich
                    Read more