I am reading the first two pages of this pdf and am confused about why they let $z(x,t) = f(x-at)$ at the bottom of page $2$. They say that since $z(x,t)$ is constant along the lines $x-at = x_0$, then $z(x,t) = f(x-at)$. But, I don't see the connection between those two statements.
Can someone please explain what they are doing?
Citation : They say that since $z(x,t)$ is constant along the lines $x-at = x_0$, then $z(x,t) = f(x-at)$.
$z(x,t)$ is constant along the line $\quad x-at = x_0\quad$ means that for the given value $x_0$ we have $\quad z=z_0=$constant.
The same, on another line $\quad x-at = x_1\quad$ , we have $\quad z=z_1=$another constant. Again $x-at = x_1$ , of course with different $x$ and $t$ than previously.
On another line $\quad x-at = x_2\quad$ , we have $\quad z=z_2=$another constant. Again $x-at = x_2$ , of course with different $x$ and $t$ than previously.
And so on.
One can understand that, at each constant $x_0$ , $x_1$ , $x_2$ , etc. corresponds a value of $z$, respectively $z_0$ , $z_1$ , $z_2$ , etc.
In other words, $z$ is a function $f$ of these constants, each one $=x-at$ , of course with different $x$ and $t$, that is: $$z=f(x-at).$$