4

If there wasn't that minus sign, the answer would be a wave equation. http://uniquation.com/ was a bust. I asked wolframalpha, and it came back with an answer which looked just like the wave equation with an extra factor of $i$. Does the equation have a more general name?

doraemonpaul
  • 16,178
  • 3
  • 31
  • 75
sweetser
  • 198

2 Answers2

3

The equation is of the Laplace type.

André Nicolas
  • 507,029
1

If $u_{tt}=-u_{xx}$ are given the conditions of the type $u(x,t_1)$ , $u_t(x,t_1)$ , $u(x_1,t)$ and $u(x_2,t)$ , you will feel that it is unlike to solving the "laplace equation" and it is like to solving the "wave equation".

If $u_{tt}=u_{xx}$ are given the conditions of the type $u(x,t_1)$ , $u(x,t_2)$ , $u(x_1,t)$ and $u(x_2,t)$ , you will feel that it is unlike to solving the "wave equation" and it is like to solving the "laplace equation".

So whether $u_{tt}=-u_{xx}$ is belongs to the "wave-type equation" or "laplace-type equation" should be controversial, especially when the $t$ in here is not represent as time or $x$ in here is not represent as position, or either or both of them haven't any physical meaning.

doraemonpaul
  • 16,178
  • 3
  • 31
  • 75