Why Doesn't Reduction Order Work for This Differential Equation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter EvLer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Reduction
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the difficulty of finding a second linearly independent solution for the differential equation 4x²y'' + 4xy' + (4x² - 1)y = 0, with x > 0, given one known solution y1(x) = sin(x) * x^(-1/2). Participants explore methods for reducing the order of the equation and express concerns about the complexity of the calculations involved.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses frustration with the complexity of deriving a second solution using reduction of order, noting that the resulting expressions for y'' are cumbersome.
  • Another participant shares their derived equation after performing algebraic manipulations, indicating that the u term was canceled, leading to a new expression involving u'' and u'.
  • A question is raised about the method used to obtain the first solution, with some participants suggesting that power series or indicial equations are typical approaches for such problems.
  • One participant mentions that any term involving "u" must be multiplied by the correct derivative of the functions multiplying u, suggesting a method to reduce the order by letting v = u'.
  • Another participant inquires about the Wronskian approach as a potential method for solving the problem.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the best method for finding the second solution, and there are varying opinions on the complexity of the calculations involved. Some express confidence in their findings, while others remain uncertain about the correctness of their approaches.

Contextual Notes

Participants mention the need for careful handling of derivatives and the potential for messy expressions, indicating that the discussion is contingent on the specific methods used and the assumptions made during the calculations.

EvLer
Messages
454
Reaction score
0
Here is one more I am having a problem with:

[tex]4x^2y'' + 4xy' + (4x^2 - 1)y = 0, x > 0[/tex]

one solution is
y1(x) = sin(x)* x-1/2

but when I try to work it all out with another linearly indep. solution

y2(x) = u(x) sin(x) * x-1/2

the order does not reduce and the y'' is huge... so I was wondering if I am missing some trick or is it really that painfully tedious :redface:

ps: couldn't figure out how to put x ^(-1/2) in latex

EDIT: I think I got it, but I did have to go through pages of writing out these derivatives.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
EvLer said:
Here is one more I am having a problem with:

[tex]4x^2y'' + 4xy' + (4x^2 - 1)y = 0, x > 0[/tex]

one solution is
y1(x) = sin(x)* x-1/2

but when I try to work it all out with another linearly indep. solution

y2(x) = u(x) sin(x) * x-1/2

the order does not reduce and the y'' is huge... so I was wondering if I am missing some trick or is it really that painfully tedious :redface:

ps: couldn't figure out how to put x ^(-1/2) in latex

EDIT: I think I got it, but I did have to go through pages of writing out these derivatives.

You mind posting the reduced-order ODE?
 
result

Yeah, sure. It took me only like an hour to do the algebra :biggrin: so I will not overload my post with the whole thing, although if you are interested I can post
In the end u term got canceled so here's what I ended up with:

u''(4x3/2sin(x)) + u'(8x3/2cos(x)) = 0

ln(u') = ln|sin(x)-2|;

u = -cot(x) + C;

so y2(x) = -x-1/2cos(x);

I hope this is correct, going to find out in class today :confused:

EDIT: yep, it's correct only i forgot about the coefficients: take A = -1 and C = 0

=> y2(x) = x-1/2cos(x);
 
Last edited:
EvLer said:
Here is one more I am having a problem with:

[tex]4x^2y'' + 4xy' + (4x^2 - 1)y = 0, x > 0[/tex]

one solution is
y1(x) = sin(x)* x-1/2

Hello EvLer. Thanks for posting that. I have a question: How did you obtain the first solution? Normally, this type of problem is approached via power series, indical equation, logarithms maybe, messy expressions, the lot.
 
saltydog said:
How did you obtain the first solution? Normally, this type of problem is approached via power series, indical equation, logarithms maybe, messy expressions, the lot.
sorry to disappoint you, but first solution was given as a condition, i.e. the problem consisted of finding second linear indep. solution given *that* solution.

EDIT:hmmmm, may be a good question to my instructor :bugeye:
 
Last edited:
I haven't calculated the whole thing but, in general any term involving "u" rather than u' or u" MUST be multiplied by the correct derivate of the functions multipling u. If that function satisfied the equation, then your final equation will involve u" and u' but NOT u. You certainly should be able to reduce the order by letting v= u'.

Post your work or at least the final equation you got.
 
Did you try the Wronskian approach (I'm actually on this chapter myself, test tomorrow)?
 
Never mind it seems that you've found the solution yourself, didn't notice all of the editing.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
5K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
5K