Convexity and concavity in a textbook figure of the fundamental solution of the heat equation $u_t - u_xx = 0$

The name of the pictureThe name of the pictureThe name of the pictureClash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP











up vote
1
down vote

favorite












My textbook has this image of the fundamental solution of the heat equation $u_t - u_xx = 0$ for $0.25 le t le 10$:



enter image description here



It says that, when we deduce from the PDE that at locations where $u_xx < 0$ (so $u$ is convex in $x$) the solution decreases in time at fixed $x$ whereas, when $u_xx > 0$ (so $u$ is concave) the solution increases in time. The points of inflection, where $u_xx$ changes sign, separate regions where the solution is increasing in time from those where it is decreasing.



Convex vs. Concave:



enter image description here



Am I thinking about this incorrectly, or does this description not match the figure provided? For constant $x$ "beneath" the line (when $u$ is convex in $x$), we see that the solution decreases till about $t = 1$ and then actually increases. And, for constant $x$ "above" the line (when $u$ is concave in $x$), the solution actually decreases in time till about $t = 1$ and only then seems to increase.



Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, or if this is an error by the author?




real-analysis geometry pde convex-analysis mathematical-modeling




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    Kindly add the PDE also so that it is easy to determine whether the claims are true or false.
    – Math Lover
    Aug 3 at 21:44










  • @MathLover Oops, sorry. I have added it now.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 21:48














up vote
1
down vote

favorite












My textbook has this image of the fundamental solution of the heat equation $u_t - u_xx = 0$ for $0.25 le t le 10$:



enter image description here



It says that, when we deduce from the PDE that at locations where $u_xx < 0$ (so $u$ is convex in $x$) the solution decreases in time at fixed $x$ whereas, when $u_xx > 0$ (so $u$ is concave) the solution increases in time. The points of inflection, where $u_xx$ changes sign, separate regions where the solution is increasing in time from those where it is decreasing.



Convex vs. Concave:



enter image description here



Am I thinking about this incorrectly, or does this description not match the figure provided? For constant $x$ "beneath" the line (when $u$ is convex in $x$), we see that the solution decreases till about $t = 1$ and then actually increases. And, for constant $x$ "above" the line (when $u$ is concave in $x$), the solution actually decreases in time till about $t = 1$ and only then seems to increase.



Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, or if this is an error by the author?




real-analysis geometry pde convex-analysis mathematical-modeling




share|cite|improve this question

















  • 1




    Kindly add the PDE also so that it is easy to determine whether the claims are true or false.
    – Math Lover
    Aug 3 at 21:44










  • @MathLover Oops, sorry. I have added it now.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 21:48












up vote
1
down vote

favorite









up vote
1
down vote

favorite











My textbook has this image of the fundamental solution of the heat equation $u_t - u_xx = 0$ for $0.25 le t le 10$:



enter image description here



It says that, when we deduce from the PDE that at locations where $u_xx < 0$ (so $u$ is convex in $x$) the solution decreases in time at fixed $x$ whereas, when $u_xx > 0$ (so $u$ is concave) the solution increases in time. The points of inflection, where $u_xx$ changes sign, separate regions where the solution is increasing in time from those where it is decreasing.



Convex vs. Concave:



enter image description here



Am I thinking about this incorrectly, or does this description not match the figure provided? For constant $x$ "beneath" the line (when $u$ is convex in $x$), we see that the solution decreases till about $t = 1$ and then actually increases. And, for constant $x$ "above" the line (when $u$ is concave in $x$), the solution actually decreases in time till about $t = 1$ and only then seems to increase.



Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, or if this is an error by the author?




real-analysis geometry pde convex-analysis mathematical-modeling




share|cite|improve this question













My textbook has this image of the fundamental solution of the heat equation $u_t - u_xx = 0$ for $0.25 le t le 10$:



enter image description here



It says that, when we deduce from the PDE that at locations where $u_xx < 0$ (so $u$ is convex in $x$) the solution decreases in time at fixed $x$ whereas, when $u_xx > 0$ (so $u$ is concave) the solution increases in time. The points of inflection, where $u_xx$ changes sign, separate regions where the solution is increasing in time from those where it is decreasing.



Convex vs. Concave:



enter image description here



Am I thinking about this incorrectly, or does this description not match the figure provided? For constant $x$ "beneath" the line (when $u$ is convex in $x$), we see that the solution decreases till about $t = 1$ and then actually increases. And, for constant $x$ "above" the line (when $u$ is concave in $x$), the solution actually decreases in time till about $t = 1$ and only then seems to increase.



Hmm, I'm not sure if I'm interpreting this incorrectly, or if this is an error by the author?





real-analysis geometry pde convex-analysis mathematical-modeling





share|cite|improve this question












share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Aug 3 at 21:47
























asked Aug 3 at 21:23









Wyuw

1036




1036







  • 1




    Kindly add the PDE also so that it is easy to determine whether the claims are true or false.
    – Math Lover
    Aug 3 at 21:44










  • @MathLover Oops, sorry. I have added it now.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 21:48












  • 1




    Kindly add the PDE also so that it is easy to determine whether the claims are true or false.
    – Math Lover
    Aug 3 at 21:44










  • @MathLover Oops, sorry. I have added it now.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 21:48







1




1




Kindly add the PDE also so that it is easy to determine whether the claims are true or false.
– Math Lover
Aug 3 at 21:44




Kindly add the PDE also so that it is easy to determine whether the claims are true or false.
– Math Lover
Aug 3 at 21:44












@MathLover Oops, sorry. I have added it now.
– Wyuw
Aug 3 at 21:48




@MathLover Oops, sorry. I have added it now.
– Wyuw
Aug 3 at 21:48










1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
4
down vote



accepted










The author has accidentally switched the words "concave" and "convex", but if you ignore those two words and read the maths(which is what I did originally), he is correct :) Its nothing more than combining the PDE $u_t = u_xx$ with the fact that $u_t < 0$ means $u$ is decreasing (and similarly for increasing.)



I remember which way round things are by remembering that $x^2$ is convex, and $(x^2)'' > 0$.



I've also attempted to recreate the graph. Note the contour lines, showing the decrease in height at $x=0$.
enter image description here



Not quite the same, but hopefully this helps. From different angles-
enter image description hereenter image description here



Edit - I just found out that Geogebra has an online 3D grapher. It even has a mode for the oldschool red-blue 3D glasses. I recreated the graph again here, and this time its interactive.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Silly me! Nice images. You are of course correct for the former. But for $u_xx > 0$ ($u$ concave in $x$), doesn't the solution for any fixed $x$ still decrease as $t$ increases? Fix $x = 0$ and we can see that as $t$ increases $u$ decreases?
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 23:56






  • 1




    Oh. Yes, the author has made a typo. I assumed he was correct because the pictures you gave in the OP classify $pm (x-a)^2 + b$ correctly as convex/concave.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:04







  • 1




    @Wyuw It is instructive to notice that if you define $tau = -t$, ("reverse time") and let $w(x,tau) = u(x,t)$, then $w$ solves the equation $w_tau = -w_xx$. So you can see the effect of having the wrong sign in the same graph as well. Namely, there is finite time blowup of the solution instead of decay to 0.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:08







  • 1




    @Wyuw Yes. the diagrams at the bottom of your post are correct, the author's math symbols are correct, but he has switched the words "concave" and "convex". I will update my answer to reflect this
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:17







  • 1




    Ok thank you for this information.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 4 at 0:18










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',
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: false,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
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%2f2871506%2fconvexity-and-concavity-in-a-textbook-figure-of-the-fundamental-solution-of-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest

















1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes








up vote
4
down vote



accepted










The author has accidentally switched the words "concave" and "convex", but if you ignore those two words and read the maths(which is what I did originally), he is correct :) Its nothing more than combining the PDE $u_t = u_xx$ with the fact that $u_t < 0$ means $u$ is decreasing (and similarly for increasing.)



I remember which way round things are by remembering that $x^2$ is convex, and $(x^2)'' > 0$.



I've also attempted to recreate the graph. Note the contour lines, showing the decrease in height at $x=0$.
enter image description here



Not quite the same, but hopefully this helps. From different angles-
enter image description hereenter image description here



Edit - I just found out that Geogebra has an online 3D grapher. It even has a mode for the oldschool red-blue 3D glasses. I recreated the graph again here, and this time its interactive.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Silly me! Nice images. You are of course correct for the former. But for $u_xx > 0$ ($u$ concave in $x$), doesn't the solution for any fixed $x$ still decrease as $t$ increases? Fix $x = 0$ and we can see that as $t$ increases $u$ decreases?
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 23:56






  • 1




    Oh. Yes, the author has made a typo. I assumed he was correct because the pictures you gave in the OP classify $pm (x-a)^2 + b$ correctly as convex/concave.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:04







  • 1




    @Wyuw It is instructive to notice that if you define $tau = -t$, ("reverse time") and let $w(x,tau) = u(x,t)$, then $w$ solves the equation $w_tau = -w_xx$. So you can see the effect of having the wrong sign in the same graph as well. Namely, there is finite time blowup of the solution instead of decay to 0.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:08







  • 1




    @Wyuw Yes. the diagrams at the bottom of your post are correct, the author's math symbols are correct, but he has switched the words "concave" and "convex". I will update my answer to reflect this
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:17







  • 1




    Ok thank you for this information.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 4 at 0:18














up vote
4
down vote



accepted










The author has accidentally switched the words "concave" and "convex", but if you ignore those two words and read the maths(which is what I did originally), he is correct :) Its nothing more than combining the PDE $u_t = u_xx$ with the fact that $u_t < 0$ means $u$ is decreasing (and similarly for increasing.)



I remember which way round things are by remembering that $x^2$ is convex, and $(x^2)'' > 0$.



I've also attempted to recreate the graph. Note the contour lines, showing the decrease in height at $x=0$.
enter image description here



Not quite the same, but hopefully this helps. From different angles-
enter image description hereenter image description here



Edit - I just found out that Geogebra has an online 3D grapher. It even has a mode for the oldschool red-blue 3D glasses. I recreated the graph again here, and this time its interactive.






share|cite|improve this answer























  • Silly me! Nice images. You are of course correct for the former. But for $u_xx > 0$ ($u$ concave in $x$), doesn't the solution for any fixed $x$ still decrease as $t$ increases? Fix $x = 0$ and we can see that as $t$ increases $u$ decreases?
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 23:56






  • 1




    Oh. Yes, the author has made a typo. I assumed he was correct because the pictures you gave in the OP classify $pm (x-a)^2 + b$ correctly as convex/concave.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:04







  • 1




    @Wyuw It is instructive to notice that if you define $tau = -t$, ("reverse time") and let $w(x,tau) = u(x,t)$, then $w$ solves the equation $w_tau = -w_xx$. So you can see the effect of having the wrong sign in the same graph as well. Namely, there is finite time blowup of the solution instead of decay to 0.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:08







  • 1




    @Wyuw Yes. the diagrams at the bottom of your post are correct, the author's math symbols are correct, but he has switched the words "concave" and "convex". I will update my answer to reflect this
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:17







  • 1




    Ok thank you for this information.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 4 at 0:18












up vote
4
down vote



accepted







up vote
4
down vote



accepted






The author has accidentally switched the words "concave" and "convex", but if you ignore those two words and read the maths(which is what I did originally), he is correct :) Its nothing more than combining the PDE $u_t = u_xx$ with the fact that $u_t < 0$ means $u$ is decreasing (and similarly for increasing.)



I remember which way round things are by remembering that $x^2$ is convex, and $(x^2)'' > 0$.



I've also attempted to recreate the graph. Note the contour lines, showing the decrease in height at $x=0$.
enter image description here



Not quite the same, but hopefully this helps. From different angles-
enter image description hereenter image description here



Edit - I just found out that Geogebra has an online 3D grapher. It even has a mode for the oldschool red-blue 3D glasses. I recreated the graph again here, and this time its interactive.






share|cite|improve this answer















The author has accidentally switched the words "concave" and "convex", but if you ignore those two words and read the maths(which is what I did originally), he is correct :) Its nothing more than combining the PDE $u_t = u_xx$ with the fact that $u_t < 0$ means $u$ is decreasing (and similarly for increasing.)



I remember which way round things are by remembering that $x^2$ is convex, and $(x^2)'' > 0$.



I've also attempted to recreate the graph. Note the contour lines, showing the decrease in height at $x=0$.
enter image description here



Not quite the same, but hopefully this helps. From different angles-
enter image description hereenter image description here



Edit - I just found out that Geogebra has an online 3D grapher. It even has a mode for the oldschool red-blue 3D glasses. I recreated the graph again here, and this time its interactive.







share|cite|improve this answer















share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer








edited Aug 4 at 0:19


























answered Aug 3 at 22:09









Calvin Khor

7,93911032




7,93911032











  • Silly me! Nice images. You are of course correct for the former. But for $u_xx > 0$ ($u$ concave in $x$), doesn't the solution for any fixed $x$ still decrease as $t$ increases? Fix $x = 0$ and we can see that as $t$ increases $u$ decreases?
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 23:56






  • 1




    Oh. Yes, the author has made a typo. I assumed he was correct because the pictures you gave in the OP classify $pm (x-a)^2 + b$ correctly as convex/concave.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:04







  • 1




    @Wyuw It is instructive to notice that if you define $tau = -t$, ("reverse time") and let $w(x,tau) = u(x,t)$, then $w$ solves the equation $w_tau = -w_xx$. So you can see the effect of having the wrong sign in the same graph as well. Namely, there is finite time blowup of the solution instead of decay to 0.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:08







  • 1




    @Wyuw Yes. the diagrams at the bottom of your post are correct, the author's math symbols are correct, but he has switched the words "concave" and "convex". I will update my answer to reflect this
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:17







  • 1




    Ok thank you for this information.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 4 at 0:18
















  • Silly me! Nice images. You are of course correct for the former. But for $u_xx > 0$ ($u$ concave in $x$), doesn't the solution for any fixed $x$ still decrease as $t$ increases? Fix $x = 0$ and we can see that as $t$ increases $u$ decreases?
    – Wyuw
    Aug 3 at 23:56






  • 1




    Oh. Yes, the author has made a typo. I assumed he was correct because the pictures you gave in the OP classify $pm (x-a)^2 + b$ correctly as convex/concave.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:04







  • 1




    @Wyuw It is instructive to notice that if you define $tau = -t$, ("reverse time") and let $w(x,tau) = u(x,t)$, then $w$ solves the equation $w_tau = -w_xx$. So you can see the effect of having the wrong sign in the same graph as well. Namely, there is finite time blowup of the solution instead of decay to 0.
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:08







  • 1




    @Wyuw Yes. the diagrams at the bottom of your post are correct, the author's math symbols are correct, but he has switched the words "concave" and "convex". I will update my answer to reflect this
    – Calvin Khor
    Aug 4 at 0:17







  • 1




    Ok thank you for this information.
    – Wyuw
    Aug 4 at 0:18















Silly me! Nice images. You are of course correct for the former. But for $u_xx > 0$ ($u$ concave in $x$), doesn't the solution for any fixed $x$ still decrease as $t$ increases? Fix $x = 0$ and we can see that as $t$ increases $u$ decreases?
– Wyuw
Aug 3 at 23:56




Silly me! Nice images. You are of course correct for the former. But for $u_xx > 0$ ($u$ concave in $x$), doesn't the solution for any fixed $x$ still decrease as $t$ increases? Fix $x = 0$ and we can see that as $t$ increases $u$ decreases?
– Wyuw
Aug 3 at 23:56




1




1




Oh. Yes, the author has made a typo. I assumed he was correct because the pictures you gave in the OP classify $pm (x-a)^2 + b$ correctly as convex/concave.
– Calvin Khor
Aug 4 at 0:04





Oh. Yes, the author has made a typo. I assumed he was correct because the pictures you gave in the OP classify $pm (x-a)^2 + b$ correctly as convex/concave.
– Calvin Khor
Aug 4 at 0:04





1




1




@Wyuw It is instructive to notice that if you define $tau = -t$, ("reverse time") and let $w(x,tau) = u(x,t)$, then $w$ solves the equation $w_tau = -w_xx$. So you can see the effect of having the wrong sign in the same graph as well. Namely, there is finite time blowup of the solution instead of decay to 0.
– Calvin Khor
Aug 4 at 0:08





@Wyuw It is instructive to notice that if you define $tau = -t$, ("reverse time") and let $w(x,tau) = u(x,t)$, then $w$ solves the equation $w_tau = -w_xx$. So you can see the effect of having the wrong sign in the same graph as well. Namely, there is finite time blowup of the solution instead of decay to 0.
– Calvin Khor
Aug 4 at 0:08





1




1




@Wyuw Yes. the diagrams at the bottom of your post are correct, the author's math symbols are correct, but he has switched the words "concave" and "convex". I will update my answer to reflect this
– Calvin Khor
Aug 4 at 0:17





@Wyuw Yes. the diagrams at the bottom of your post are correct, the author's math symbols are correct, but he has switched the words "concave" and "convex". I will update my answer to reflect this
– Calvin Khor
Aug 4 at 0:17





1




1




Ok thank you for this information.
– Wyuw
Aug 4 at 0:18




Ok thank you for this information.
– Wyuw
Aug 4 at 0:18












 

draft saved


draft discarded


























 


draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2871506%2fconvexity-and-concavity-in-a-textbook-figure-of-the-fundamental-solution-of-the%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest
































































Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalised tilt?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite What is the equation of a 3D cone with generalized tilt? I've noticed that in most equations given to represent a cone, there is no parameter which defines the tilt of the cone in 3D space and that most of them have their point at the origin $(0,0,0)$ - I was wondering if anyone could give me a more generalized cone equation for a cone in any position in 3D space 3d share | cite | improve this question edited Jul 25 '16 at 0:05 ervx 9,425 3 13 36 asked Jul 24 '16 at 15:38 Charlene 11 2 2 Welcome to Math.SE! Could you please explain a few things to help people give an answer useful to you: 1. What do you mean by "generalized tilt"? 2. Are you asking about a right circular cone? Does the angle at the vertex matter? 3. What form of answer (implicit, parametric...?) are you looking for? 4. If this is homework, what tools do you have available, an...
Read more

Relationship between determinant of matrix and determinant of adjoint?

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 2 down vote favorite We are studying adjoints in class, and I was curious if there is a relationship between the determinant of matrix A, and the determinant of the adjoint of matrix A? I assume there would be a relationship because finding the adjoint requires creating a cofactor matrix and then transposing it. linear-algebra determinant adjoint-operators share | cite | improve this question asked Nov 17 '17 at 17:32 CluelessCoder 32 5 For a square matrix $A$ of order $n$, we have $A(operatornameadj A)=(operatornameadj A)A=|A|I_n$ where $I_n$ is the identity matrix of order $n$. This should tell you about the determinant of the adjoint in terms of that of $A$ (use multiplicative property and other elementary properties of determinants). – Prasun Biswas Nov 17 '17 at 17:35 1 @CluelessCoder: see here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/516127/…...
Read more

Color the edges and diagonals of a regular polygon

Image
Clash Royale CLAN TAG #URR8PPP up vote 5 down vote favorite 1 Here is the problem: For what $n$ is it possible to color the edges and diagonals of an $n$-side regular polygon with $dfracbinomn23$ colors, such that you use every color exactly three times and for every color the three segments (edges or diagonals) with that color form a triangle? Trivially $nequiv 0 text or 1 pmod3$. I can also prove that if the statement is true for $k$ than it is true for $3k$ as well. How to finish? Please help! Thanks combinatorial-geometry share | cite | improve this question edited Aug 6 at 21:57 alcana 118 4 asked Aug 6 at 21:15 Leo Gardner 356 11 Even assuming "polyhpn" in the title is a typo for polygon , it is unclear what you mean by "the edges and sides". Aren't the side of a regular polygon the same as the edges? A regular $n$-sided polygon has $n$ edges. – hardmath Aug 6 at 21:20 3 $n$ ne...
Read more