[944] Confusing notations

[Gautam Iyer]

On Sun, Nov 26, 2017 at 06:14:47PM -0500, Ze Yang wrote:

> With your notation, It appears to me that we actually didn't
> substitute any variable in this step, and I'm very confused with these
> notations. Could you explain?

My suggestion is the following: We have a formula for v in terms of c in
4(b), from which you can certainly compute the derivatives of v with
respect to t and y, etc. Now tinker with the constants until you get the
desired simplified equation for v.

In terms of "where we actually substituted", once you have a simplified
equation for v, you will have an explicit formula for v (given on the
hw). From this formula, you need to substitute back and figure out what
c is. This step (which is part (c), and is straightforward but tedious)
is where we substitute.

You can equivalently define a new variable z as you did, and compute an
equation for (e^{gamma_1 t} c) in terms of z.

GI

-- 
'Reality' -- A crutch for people who can't face drugs.