Family of 2-D curves

Let us define a 2-D curve in a (p, v) plane in a standard way:

(1.1)

(, ) = 0,

where is some function that is sufficiently differentiable for whatever we may want to do with it.
Then, the differentials of p and v are related by equation
(, ) + (, ) = 0,

where

(, ) =

(, )
,

(, ) =

(1.2)

(, )
.

In our previous notations, we used a solution of equation (1) in form

and we also used notation

= (),

= (, ),

so, for consistency with equation (1.2), we have

(, ) =

(1.3)

(1.4)
(1.5)

(, )
.
(, )

(1.6)

However, instead of a single curve given by equation (1.1), we considered a family of curves defined by
equation
(1.7)
(, ) = ,

where C is a constant regarded as a parameter labeling each curve. For this family, equations (1.2), (1.3),
(1.5), and (1.6) are also valid.
Notation of equation (1.4) needs to be modified to account for having a different () for every value of
. It can be done by writing = () or = (; ). We shall see whether we need that and what
may be convenient later.
If a 2-D curve is found by solving a differential equation (DE), either in form (1.2) or in form (1.5), given a
known (, ), the constant/parameter is determined by the initial condition
(, ) = (0 , 0 ).

3-D curves

(1.8)

In addition you also want to consider a 3-D curve in a (p, v, E) space. A standard definition would be a
system of two equations, {1 (, , ) = 0 & 2 (, , ) = 0}, however you want to define the 3-D
curve in a special way related to family (1.7) of 2-D curves, namely by two equations

and

= (, ),

(2.1)

(, )(, ) + (, ) = (, ),

(2.2)

where equation (2.2) simply states that the derivative of E along the curve from family (1.7) that passes
through point (, ) is some required (, ).

This definition has , and with it equation (2.1) entirely passive, in that the value of E plays no role in
relations between (, ), (, ), and (, ).
The only active part is equation (2.2) which fixes (, ) if (, ) and (, ) are known, or it fixes
(, ) if (, ) and (, ) are known, or it constrains possible choices of (, ) if (, ) and
(, ) are known.

There is the question now, whether you can somehow use equations (2.1) and (2.2) to find ()
numerically without solving DE (1.5) directly, assuming you know (, ) and (, ).
My view is that it is not possible, because part (2.1) is passive, and whatever you do with part (2.2)
would be equivalent to simply finding (, ) and solving (1.7).

This means that all the complicated derivations you attempted were obscuring the simple reality. In
terms of accuracy, whatever circling around you attempt to find a numerical approximation for
(0 + ) to accuracy ( ) it cannot possibly be different from the result of a direct application to
(1.7) of any numerical method that yields accuracy ( ).