Proving Independent Functions: Wronskian for n=2

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving the relationship between the Wronskian of two functions and their linear independence. Participants explore the proof by induction for the Wronskian, specifically for the case of two functions, f(x) and g(x), and whether the Wronskian being non-zero implies linear independence and vice versa.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • dogma presents an initial proof direction, showing that if the Wronskian Wr(f(x), g(x)) is not zero at some point, then f(x) and g(x) are linearly independent.
  • Another participant, Ivy, suggests that proving the reverse direction (linear dependence implies the Wronskian is zero) is easier and provides a brief outline of this proof.
  • dogma expresses gratitude for Ivy's clarification but remains uncertain about proving the reverse direction.
  • A later reply discusses the equivalence of linear independence and the existence of a point where the Wronskian is non-zero, emphasizing that the theorem may only hold in one direction.
  • Counterexamples are provided, illustrating cases where the Wronskian is zero but the functions are still linearly independent, highlighting the complexity of the relationship.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the implications of the Wronskian regarding linear independence. There are competing views on whether the theorem holds in both directions or only one, with counterexamples presented to challenge the established claims.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in the assumptions made about the functions and their domains. The counterexamples suggest that the relationship between the Wronskian and linear independence may depend on specific conditions that are not universally applicable.

dogma
Messages
35
Reaction score
0
Hello out there.

I'm working on a proof by induction of the Wronskian and need a little boost to get going.

So, here goes:

If [tex]y_1,...,y_n \in C^n[a,b][/tex], then their Wronskian is:

[tex]Wr(y_1,...,y_n)=det\left(\begin{array}{ccc}y_1&\cdots&y_n\\y_1\prime&\cdots&y_n\prime\\\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\y_1^{(n-1)}&\cdots&y_n^{(n-1)}\end{array}\right)[/tex]

In general, a set of functions will be linearly independent IFF the Wronskian is not identically zero.

Prove this for n = 2, that is [tex]f(x), g(x)[/tex] are independent IFF

[tex]\left\vert\begin{array}{cc}f(x)&g(x)\\f^\prime(x)&g^\prime(x)\end{array}\right\vert[/tex] is not identically zero.

Okay, I think I understand how to prove this in one direction. That is, assuming the [tex]Wr(f,g) \neq 0[/tex] and showing that [tex]f(x), g(x)[/tex] are independent.

But I'm a little stuck in the assumptions for proving the other direction.

This is what I have for the proof in one direction:

Assume [tex]Wr(f(x),g(x)) \neq 0[/tex].

Then there exists some [tex]x_o[/tex] such that [tex]Wr(f(x_o),g(x_o)) \neq 0[/tex].

Assume:
[tex]c_1 f(x) + c_2 g(x) \equiv 0[/tex]
[tex]c_1 f^\prime(x) + c_2 g^\prime(x) \equiv 0[/tex]

then
[tex]c_1 f(x_o) + c_2 g(x_o) = 0[/tex]
[tex]c_1 f^\prime(x_o) + c_2 g^\prime(x_o) = 0[/tex]

We have two equations in the unknowns [tex]c_1[/tex] and [tex]c_2[/tex].

[tex]\left \vert \begin{array}{cc}f(x_o) & g(x_o) \\ f^ \prime (x_o) & g ^\prime (x_o) \end{array} \right \vert \neq 0[/tex]

Therefore there are unique solutions.

One such solution is: [tex]c_1 = c_2 = 0[/tex]

This turns out to be the only solution.

Therefore [tex]f(x)[/tex] and [tex]g(x)[/tex] are independent.


I'm sure my wording is a little off. But I'm still confused about how I would prove it the other way.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.


dogma
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Looks good to me.

And the other way is easier!

Suppose f and g are NOT independent. Then there exist a, b such that af(x)+ bg(x)= 0 for all x. If b is not 0, then g(x)= (a/b)f(x) and the Wronskian if f(x)g'(x)- f'(x)g(x)= f(x)(b/a)f'(x)- f'(x)(b/a)f(x)= (b/a)(f(x)f'(x)- f'(x)f(x))= 0 for all x.

(If b is 0, then f(x) must be identically 0 so the Wronskian is 0(g'(x))- 0(g(x))= 0.)
 
Thanks, Mr. Ivy!

That makes things a lot clearer! I can see the light.


dogma
 
Ok, so Ivy proved the way you wanted : (Linearly dependent)->Wr(x)=0 forall x

The problem is that : this is equivalent to "exists t Wr(t)!=0->Lin independent" which is what dogma proved.

Since you said it's IFF, then remains to prove :

"Lin indep->exists t Wr(t)!=0" which is equivalent to "W(x)=0 \forall x->lin dep"

Since W(x)=0=f(x)g'(x)-f'(x)g(x).

If f(x)!=0 and g(x)!=0 for a certain domain of x...then clearly f(x)=Cg(x) from the diff. equ...(f'/f)=(g'/g)...but only on this domain

If exist a domain with f(y)=0, f'(y)=0 then g(x) can be anything

Hence the theorem is only in one direction since you can find f,g lin indep such that Wr(f,g)=0 forall x

For counterexample :

[tex]f(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} 0 & |x|\leq 1\\ (x+1)^2(x-1)^2 & else\end{array}\right.[/tex]
[tex]g(x)=(x-1)^2(x+1)^2[/tex]

Then cleary f,g are in C^1(R) :

[tex]f'(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} 0 & |x|\leq 1 \\4x(x-1)(x+1) & |x|\geq 1\end{array}\right.[/tex]

You see that f'(\pm 1+)=0=f'(\pm 1-) so f'(x) is continuous on R.

If |x|<1 then W=0 clearly since f=0
if |x|>1 then W=0 clearly since f,g are dep on |x|>1

However f and g are lin indep on R, since if f-g=0 on |x|>1 then f-g!=0 in [-1;1]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 23 ·
Replies
23
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
48
Views
7K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K