I have to transform a second order differential equation into a Bernoulli type differential equation, however, I am having some trouble. The original equation is: \begin{equation} u\frac{d^{2}u}{dt^{2}} - \bigg(\frac{du}{dt}\ \bigg)^{2} +(\gamma -x_{0}\beta u)u\frac{du}{dt}=0 \end{equation} By defining a new function: \begin{equation} \phi = \frac{dt}{du} \end{equation} The original equation has to be transformed into: \begin{equation} \frac{d\phi}{du} + \frac{1}{u}\phi = (y-x_{0}\beta u) \phi^{2} \end{equation} Would anyone be willing to suggest any ideas for how this might be achieved? Thank you!
2 Answers
We have
$$\phi=\frac{dt}{du}\implies \frac{d\phi}{du}=\frac{d}{du}\frac{dt}{du}=\frac{dt}{du}\frac d{dt}\frac{1}{\frac{du}{dt}}=-\phi\frac{\frac{d^2u}{dt^2}}{\left(\frac{du}{dt}\right)^2}=-\phi^3\frac{d^2u}{dt^2}$$
Then the original differential equation transforms from
$$u\frac{d^{2}u}{dt^{2}} - \bigg(\frac{du}{dt}\ \bigg)^{2} +(\gamma -x_{0}\beta u)u\frac{du}{dt}=0$$
to
$$-\frac u{\phi^3}\frac{d\phi}{du}-\frac1{\phi^2}+(\gamma-x_0\beta u)\frac u{\phi}=0$$
Multiplying through by $-\frac{\phi^3}u$, one gets to the required answer.
$$\frac{d\phi}{du}+\frac1u\phi-(\gamma-x_0\beta u)\phi^2=0$$
(I think you have a couple of typos in the question)

- 14,545
Same solution, but with more details concerning the computations: Leibniz notation $\frac{d}{dx}$ is very concise but you can lose track of what you really do, especially for high order derivatives.
$u$ is some function of $t$, $u=f(t)$. Let's denote $f^{-1}$ the reciprocal function (it must be assumed that $u$ is monotonic on a neighborhood of $t$ to make the change of function meaningful): $$ f\circ f^{-1}(u)=u $$ Using the chain rule we get: $$ \frac{d}{du}(f\circ f^{-1}(u))=f'(f^{-1}(u))(f^{-1})'(u)=1 $$ thus, by identification: $$ \phi(u)\triangleq (f^{-1})'(u)=\frac{1}{f'(f^{-1}(u))}\triangleq\frac{dt}{du} $$ which can be rewritten as (in a more concise form): $$ \frac{du}{dt}=\frac{1}{\phi} $$ Now if you derivate once more: \begin{align} \frac{d}{du}\phi(u)&=\frac{d}{du}\frac{1}{f'(f^{-1}(u))}\\ &=-\frac{(f^{-1})'(u)f''(f^{-1}(u))}{(f'(f^{-1}(u)))^2}\\ &=-\phi^3(u)f''(f^{-1}(u)) \end{align} which can be rewritten as (in a more concise form): $$ \frac{d^2u}{dt^2}=-\frac{1}{\phi^3}\frac{d\phi}{du} $$ Now you can do direct substitution into your initial equation: $$ u\frac{d^2u}{dt^2}−(\frac{du}{dt})^2+(γ−x_0βu)u\frac{du}{dt}=0 $$ hence $$ -\frac{u}{\phi^3}\frac{d\phi}{du}-(\frac{1}{\phi})^2+(γ−x_0βu)u\frac{1}{\phi}=0 $$ If you multiply by $-\frac{\phi^3}{u}$ you get your expected result: $$ \frac{d\phi}{du}+\frac{\phi}{u}=(γ−x_0βu)\phi^2 $$
Extra comment concerning (critics of the) Leibniz notation:
I personally do not like Leibniz notation for high order derivatives. By example, it is clear that the chain rule can be written as: $$ \frac{dy}{dt}=\frac{dy}{dx}\frac{dx}{dt} $$ however for higher order derivatives great care must be taken, as this notation can also be misleading: $$ \frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\frac{d^2y}{dx^2}\frac{dx^2}{dt^2}=\frac{d^2y}{dx^2}\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2 $$ which is wrong, the right formula is: $$ \frac{d^2y}{dt^2}=\frac{d^2y}{dx^2}\left(\frac{dx}{dt}\right)^2+\frac{dy}{dx}\frac{d^2x}{dt^2} $$ You have not this problem with Lagrange notation: $$ y(x(t))''=(y'(x(t))x'(t))'=y''(x(t))(x'(t))^2+y'(x(t))x''(t) $$
So, personally I always have doubts when I write expressions like: $$ \frac{d}{du}\frac{dt}{du}=\frac{dt}{du}\frac d{dt}\frac{1}{\frac{du}{dt}} $$ (again it is a matter of personal habits, I do not say it is a bad thing to do that (see post comments), it is just that personally I don't feel confident when I write these kind of expressions).
This problem (and others) with the Leibniz notation is well known when teaching differential calculus, see:
H. Poincaré, La Notation Différentielle et l'enseignement (pdf)
J. Hadamard, La notion de différentielle dans l'enseignement (pdf)
unfortunately both in French, however you can find an English translation of Hadamard's article here.
You can also see:
Differentials, higher-order differentials and the derivative in the Leibnizian calculus (pdf)

- 2,952
-
In your second equation, did you mean to differentiate with respect to $u$? Otherwise, I don't see how this can equal $1$. If that is not what you meant, then it would also mean you are missing a $\frac{du}{dt}$ term. Also, I am not sure I agree that it is easier to keep track of what you are doing this way, it seems harder to follow for me (but of course, it can't hurt to have an alternative method posted). +1 – John Doe Jan 05 '19 at 00:44
-
@JohnDoe, thanks for the feedback, yes a typo, fixed! – Picaud Vincent Jan 05 '19 at 00:47
-
@JohnDoe I have added two references concerning pros and cons of the Leibniz notation, sorry these two articles are in French. I know that one of the two also has an English translation I will try to find it (I do not remember where I have seen it) – Picaud Vincent Jan 05 '19 at 00:55
-
@JohnDoe ok I just found the Hadamard's article English version. Links fixed. – Picaud Vincent Jan 05 '19 at 01:05
-
@JohnDoe to be more precise I have some problems writing these kind of expressions $\frac{d}{du}\frac{dt}{du}=\frac{dt}{du}\frac d{dt}\frac{1}{\frac{du}{dt}}$, but as you say it is a matter of personal taste (and for sure it is shorter!) :-) – Picaud Vincent Jan 05 '19 at 01:11
-
@JohnDoe (I forgot my +1 too) – Picaud Vincent Jan 05 '19 at 01:17
-
I have read the article. It is an interesting debate, which I do think just boils down to personal preference. I do agree, writing equations with $d^2u$ as a differential in them also appear meaningless to me! I don't have any problem with using those kinds of expressions in intermediate calculations, since I know they will lead me to the same final answer as Newtonian notation would lead you to. Interestingly, there has been a post on MSE about Newton vs Leibniz notation. At the end of the day, nobody is wrong! :) – John Doe Jan 05 '19 at 01:19
-
1@JohnDoe thanks for the link! Yes interesting debate. I also do agree that it is a personal preference, the most important thing is to know what there are behind the notations :) – Picaud Vincent Jan 05 '19 at 01:22