Is This Nonlinear O.D.E. Solvable?

  • Thread starter Thread starter asdf1
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a nonlinear ordinary differential equation (O.D.E.) given by y' = (1 - 2y - 4x) / (1 + y + 2x). Participants explore various methods for solving this equation and question the appropriateness of different approaches.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Conceptual clarification, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the use of substitutions, such as u = y + 2x, to simplify the equation. There are inquiries about the rationale behind these substitutions and the classification of the O.D.E. as exact or separable. Some participants also express confusion about integrating certain terms and the conditions for exactness.

Discussion Status

The conversation is active, with participants providing insights into different methods of tackling the problem. Some guidance has been offered regarding the use of substitutions and the characteristics of exact equations, although there is no explicit consensus on a single approach. Participants continue to explore their calculations and reasoning.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention potential errors in their calculations and express uncertainty about the correctness of their results. The discussion reflects a collaborative effort to clarify misunderstandings and validate approaches without reaching a definitive solution.

asdf1
Messages
734
Reaction score
0
for this O.D.E.
y`= (1-2y-4x)/(1+y+2x)
how do you treat it?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
[tex]y' = \frac{{1 - 2y - 4x}}{{1 + y + 2x}} = \frac{{ - 2\left( { - {\raise0.5ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 1$}<br /> \kern-0.1em/\kern-0.15em<br /> \lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 2$}} + y + 2x} \right)}}{{1 + y + 2x}}[/tex]

Now try the substitution [tex]u = y + 2x[/tex], it should become separable.
 
how'd you think of making that substitution?
 
It's a typical strategy for ODE's of the form:

[tex]y' = \frac{{ax + by + c}}{{a'x + b'y + c'}}[/tex]

Consider the nominator and denominator as 2 lines.

Case 1: they intersect -> substitute so you move the intersection to the origine to lose the constant term, making it homogenous

Case 2: they're parallel -> there is a k that you can factor out (like in this case) to get the same coefficients in x and y, substitue for that expression.
 
wow! thank you very much! :)
 
No problem :smile:

In a bit more detail, in case 1 (intersecting lines), search the point of intersection, I'll call it [itex]\left( {x_0 ,y_0 } \right)[/itex]

Then do the substitution:

[tex]\left\{ \begin{array}{l}<br /> x = u + x_0 \\ <br /> y = v + y_0 \\ <br /> \end{array} \right[/tex]

The DE will become homogenous. The other case (parallel) is the one that applies to your problem and it will make the DE separable.
 
ok~ great! :)
 
The way I would have done y`= (1-2y-4x)/(1+y+2x) is to rewrite it as

(1+ y+ 2x)dy+ (4x+ 2y-1)dx= 0. This is an "exact" equation.
 
then (1+y+2x)dy=-(4x+ 2y-1)dx
but then when you integrate both sides,
say on the left side, what do you do with "2x"? is it still possible to integrate that?
 
  • #10
No, I did not intend that you try to integrate the two parts separately- not only is there a "2x" in the "dy" term but there is a "2y" in the "dx" term.

I said this was an exact equation. That means that the "differential form"
(1+ y+ 2x)dy+ (4x+ 2y-1)dx (and I want them on the same side of the equation!) IS an exact differential- that is, there exist some function F(x,y) so that
dF= (1+ y+ 2x)dy+ (4x+ 2y- 1)dx. That, in turn, means that
[tex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial x}= 4x+ 2y- 1[/tex] and
[tex]\frac{\partial F}{\partial y}= 1+ y+ 2x[/tex].
Since the "partial derivative of F with respect to x" treats y as if it were a constant, an "anti-partial-derivative" of that first would give F(x,y)=2x2+ 2xy- x+ g(y). Notice that, since we are treating y as a constant here, the "constant of integration could be any function of y- that's the "g(y)".

Now differentiate that with respect to y:
[tex]2x+ g'(y)= \frac{\partial F}{\partial y}= 1+ y+ 2x[/tex].
Fortunately for us, the "2x" terms on each side cancel (that's because this was an "exact differential") leaving g'(y)= 1+ y so that g(y)= y+ (1/2)y2+ C.
Putting that into the previous function, F(x,y)= 2x2+ 2xy- x+ y+ (1/2)y2+ C.

The original equation was "dF= 0" so F(x,y)= constant. Including the "C" above in that constant, 2x2+ 2xy- x+ y+ (1/2)y2= C is the general solution to the differential equation.
 
  • #11
Of course, I forgot to check whether it was exact :blushing:

If it's not though, the method I described above works for any of these types in general.
 
  • #12
thank you very much for explaining! :)
 
  • #13
hmm... here's my work:
suppose v= y+2x
=> v`= y`+2
so y`= (1-2v)/(1+v)
=> v`= 3/(1+v)
=> (1+v)dv = 3dx
=> v+(v^2)/2 = 2x+c
=> y+2x +(y^2 +4xy + 4x^2)/2 = 3x +c
however, the correct answer should be 2y - 2x + (y+2x)^2=c
does anybody know where my calculations went wrong?
 
Last edited:
  • #14
If

[tex]y' = \frac{{1 - 2y - 4x}}{{1 + y + 2x}} = \frac{{ - 2\left( { - {\raise0.5ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 1$}<br /> \kern-0.1em/\kern-0.15em<br /> \lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 2$}} + y + 2x} \right)}}{{1 + y + 2x}}[/tex]

Then using [itex]u = y + 2x \Leftrightarrow y = u - 2x \Leftrightarrow y' = u' - 2[/itex] gives

[tex]u' - 2 = \frac{{ - 2\left( { - {\raise0.5ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 1$}<br /> \kern-0.1em/\kern-0.15em<br /> \lower0.25ex\hbox{$\scriptstyle 2$}} + u} \right)}}{{1 + u}} \Leftrightarrow u' = \frac{{1 - 2u}}{{1 + u}} + 2 = \frac{3}{{u + 1}}[/tex]

I believe you forgot that -2 after substituting y'.

But as HallsofIvy said, you can solve this as an exact DE too.
 
  • #15
sorry, i mistyped~
@@a
the result is still the same as yours, though...
so there's still some place that went wrong?
 
  • #16
Your answer seems correct, it's just not in the same form I think.
Solved for y, both solutions give (apart from a factor 2 for the constant, but that's still a constant):

[tex]y = \pm \sqrt {6x + c + 1} - 2x - 1[/tex]
 
  • #17
ok, thank you very much! :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
27
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
5K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 40 ·
2
Replies
40
Views
3K
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K