Alternate form of Principle of superposition

member 731016
Homework Statement
I am trying to reword my textbook definition of the principle of superposition in terms of propositional logic
Relevant Equations
$$L[y] = y^{''} + p(t)y^{'} + q(t)y = 0$$
The definition is,
1712891868313.png

I rewrite it as $$(L[y_1] = L[y_2] = 0) \rightarrow (L[c_1y_1 + c_2y_2] = 0)$$.

However, I also wonder, whether it could also be rewritten as,

$$(L[c_1y_1 + c_2y_2] = 0) \rightarrow (L[y_1] = L[y_2] = 0) $$

And thus, combining, the two cases,

Principle of superposition. $$(L[c_1y_1 + c_2y_2] = 0) ↔ (L[y_1] = L[y_2] = 0)$$

Is my reasoning correct please?

Thanks for any help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
As long as you include the statement about ”any coefficients ##c_1## and ##c_2##” it is obvious that if ##L[c_1y_1 + c_2y_2] = 0## then each of the ys is a solution.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes member 731016 and DaveE
Orodruin said:
As long as you include the statement about ”any coefficients ##c_1## and ##c_2##” it is obvious that if ##L[c_1y_1 + c_2y_2] = 0## then each of the ys is a solution.
Thank you for your reply @Orodruin!

Yes that is a good idea to quantify my statement with ∀ to give

$$(L[c_1y_1 + c_2y_2] = 0) ↔ (L[y_1] = L[y_2] = 0)$$ $$∀c_1, c_2 ∈ \mathbb{R}$$


Thanks!
 
Prove $$\int\limits_0^{\sqrt2/4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x-x^2}}\arcsin\sqrt{\frac{(x-1)\left(x-1+x\sqrt{9-16x}\right)}{1-2x}} \, \mathrm dx = \frac{\pi^2}{8}.$$ Let $$I = \int\limits_0^{\sqrt 2 / 4}\frac{1}{\sqrt{x-x^2}}\arcsin\sqrt{\frac{(x-1)\left(x-1+x\sqrt{9-16x}\right)}{1-2x}} \, \mathrm dx. \tag{1}$$ The representation integral of ##\arcsin## is $$\arcsin u = \int\limits_{0}^{1} \frac{\mathrm dt}{\sqrt{1-t^2}}, \qquad 0 \leqslant u \leqslant 1.$$ Plugging identity above into ##(1)## with ##u...
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top