MHB 29.1 give a system of fundamental solutions

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on solving a system of differential equations represented by y'_1 = 3y_1 and y'_2 = 2y_2, and determining the appropriate matrix A. Participants clarify that the correct matrix for the system is A = diag(3, 2), indicating that the system is decoupled since the equations do not involve each other. The concept of diagonal versus diagonalizable matrices is explored, with clarification that the original matrix presented was triangular rather than diagonal. The general solution for the system is identified as y_1 = C_1 e^(3x) and y_2 = C_2 e^(2x), emphasizing the simplicity of solving decoupled equations. Overall, the conversation highlights the importance of correctly identifying matrix forms in relation to the system of differential equations.
karush
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
3,240
Reaction score
5
determine their general solution and give a system of fundamental solutions.
use the different techniques of diagonal, diagonalizedable, or triangular.
$\begin{cases}
y'_1 & =3y_1 \\ y'_2 & =2y_2\end{cases}$
set matrix
$A= \begin{pmatrix}0 &3\\0 &2\end{pmatrix}$
then find eigenvaluesok just seeing if i am starting out correctly with this..
not sure what the difference is between diagonal and diagonalizedable? but it looks diagonal
 
Physics news on Phys.org
karush said:
determine their general solution and give a system of fundamental solutions.
use the different techniques of diagonal, diagonalizedable, or triangular.
$\begin{cases}
y'_1 & =3y_1 \\ y'_2 & =2y_2\end{cases}$
set matrix
$A= \begin{pmatrix}0 &3\\0 &2\end{pmatrix}$
then find eigenvaluesok just seeing if i am starting out correctly with this..
not sure what the difference is between diagonal and diagonalizedable? but it looks diagonal
It doesn't look diagonal to me, because of the $3$ that is off the diagonal. But it does look triangular.
 
Opalg said:
It doesn't look diagonal to me, because of the $3$ that is off the diagonal. But it does look triangular.

ok I don't know for sure but doesn't a diagonal have the property
$A=PDP^{-1}$

which I think it does
 
Your DE doesn't match the matrix $A.$ Your system of DE's is actually de-coupled, as you've written it; for such a system, I would expect $A$ to be diagonal. So the matrix $A$ which matches your system would be
$$A=\left[\begin{matrix}3 &0 \\ 0 &2\end{matrix}\right].$$
 
how would that fit to $y_1$ and $y_2$ since there is no $x_i$

not sure what you mean by decoupled
 
A system of equations like yours:
\begin{align*}
y_1'&=3y_1 \\
y_2'&=2y_2
\end{align*}
is very often written (with an eye towards using matrix methods) in the form $\mathbf{y}'=A\mathbf{y},$ where $A$ is a $2\times 2$ matrix, and
$$\mathbf{y}=\left[\begin{matrix}y_1\\y_2\end{matrix}\right].$$
So, if you compare $\mathbf{y}'=A\mathbf{y}$ with your system, it appears that $A$ must be
$$A=\left[\begin{matrix}3&0\\0&2\end{matrix}\right].$$
The lack of $x_i$ is not a problem here.

The system is called "decoupled" when the dependent variables don't show up in each others' DE's. So, in the equation $y_1'=3y_1,$ there's no $y_2,$ and in the equation $y_2'=2y_2,$ there's no $y_1.$ De-coupled DE's are very often considerably simpler to solve, since you can basically solve each one separately. Indeed, you can simply write down by inspection the solution to this system:
\begin{align*}
y_1&=C_1 e^{3x}\\
y_2&=C_2 e^{2x},
\end{align*}
assuming $x$ is the independent variable.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 34 ·
2
Replies
34
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
3
Views
2K