Could use a little advice here, with a 2nd order ODE

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter MaximumTaco
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    2nd order Ode
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a second-order ordinary differential equation (ODE) of the form xy'' -(2x+1)y' + (x+1)y = (x e^x)^2. Participants explore methods for finding the general solution, including reduction of order and the Frobenius method, while addressing challenges encountered in the process.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes a solution of the form y = ((x-1)e^(2x) u(x)) and expresses difficulty in applying reduction of order, noting that the u(x) term does not cancel out.
  • Another participant suggests that the solution can be expressed as y(x) = y_{p}(x) + y_{h}(x), identifying y_{p}(x) = (x-1)e^(2x) and providing a homogeneous solution with two linearly independent solutions, one being y_{h_{1}}(x) = c_{1}e^(x) and the other derived through reduction of order.
  • A participant indicates confusion regarding the Frobenius method and expresses difficulty in understanding how to derive the second linearly independent solution.
  • Another participant clarifies that the Frobenius method is not necessary for constructing the first solution and discusses the reduction of order method to find the second solution, leading to a simplified equation for v(x).

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding regarding the methods discussed, particularly the Frobenius method and reduction of order. There is no consensus on the best approach to take, and some participants indicate confusion about the steps involved.

Contextual Notes

Some participants mention the need for further justification of their methods, such as using the Frobenius method or variation of parameters, but do not resolve the mathematical steps or assumptions involved in their approaches.

MaximumTaco
Messages
44
Reaction score
0
xy'' -(2x+1)y' + (x+1)y = (x ex)2

I know a solution - (x-1)e2x

Thus, y= ((x-1)e2x u(x))

Now, i know how to do the whole reduction of order thing, but when i find y' and y'' and substitute, the u(x) term doesn't cancel out so this doesn't work

(x2-x)u'' + (2x2-x+1)u' + x2u = x2

So, how do i approach this? Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You know that the solution can be written in the form [tex]y(x)=y_{p}(x)+y_{h}(x)[/tex] where [tex]y_{p}(x)[/tex] is the particular solution and [tex]y_{h}(x)[/tex] is the solution to the homogeneous equation

[tex]xy_{h}''(x)-(2x+1)y_{h}'(x)+(x+1)y_{h}(x)=0[/tex].

You already know that [tex]y_{p}(x)=(x-1)e^{2x}[/tex].

For the homogeneous equation, there are two linearly independent solutions, one of them is clearly

[tex]y_{h_{1}}(x)=c_{1}e^{x}[/tex]

and using the reduction of order, the other is

[tex]y_{h_{2}}(x)=c_{2}\frac{x^2}{2}e^{x}[/tex].

So the general solution to the ode is
[tex]y(x)=c_{1}e^{x}+c_{2}\frac{x^2}{2}e^{x}+(x-1)e^{2x}[/tex]

If you need further justification, use frobenius method for the homogenous equation to calculate [tex]y_{h_{1}}(x)[/tex], reduction of order for [tex]y_{h_{2}}(x)[/tex], and variation of parameters for [tex]y_{p}(x)[/tex]. That way the problem is fully justified.

ps. i deleted my first post as it was wrong and confusing.
 
Last edited:
I understand the first technique, but I'm not familiar with the Frobenius method, i looked it up on Mathworld and it looks really complex

With your other post, i can't quite follow how to get the second linearly independent solution. Thanks.
 
Ignore the first post... is nonsence, that's why i deleted it.

Given [tex]y_{1}(x)=e^{x}[/tex] using reduction of order to get the second solution

[tex]y_{2}(x)=v(x)e^{x}[/tex]

implies that

[tex]y'_{2}(x)=[v'(x)+v(x)]e^{x}[/tex]

[tex]y''_{2}(x)=[v''(x)+2v'(x)+v(x)]e^{x}[/tex]

substituting in [tex]xy''_{2}(x)-(2x+1)y'_{2}(x)+(x+1)y_{2}(x)=0[/tex]

we get that

[tex]xv''(x)-v'(x)=0[/tex]

do i need to go further?

ps. Frobenius method is used only if you want to *construct* the first solution [tex]y_{1}=c_{1}e^{x}[/tex]. Just so you know that it didnt came from divine inspiration, you don't need to use it though.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K