Can anyone solve this 1st order nonlinear ODE with constants a and b?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter all015
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Nonlinear Ode
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The forum discussion focuses on solving the first-order nonlinear ordinary differential equation (ODE) given by dy/dx = ay / (bx² + xy), where a and b are constants. Participants emphasize the importance of considering the function x(y) instead of y(x) for analytical inversion. The discussion highlights the use of the exponential integral function Ei(y) in the solution process, while clarifying that Ei(x) is not applicable. Numerical solutions using Mathematica's NDSolve and plotting techniques are also shared, confirming the analytical approach.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of first-order nonlinear ordinary differential equations
  • Familiarity with the exponential integral function Ei(y)
  • Proficiency in using Mathematica for numerical solutions
  • Knowledge of analytical methods for function inversion
NEXT STEPS
  • Explore advanced techniques for solving nonlinear ODEs
  • Learn about the properties and applications of the exponential integral function Ei(y)
  • Investigate numerical methods for verifying analytical solutions in Mathematica
  • Study function inversion techniques in the context of differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers dealing with nonlinear differential equations, as well as students seeking to deepen their understanding of ODEs and numerical analysis techniques.

all015
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
Can anyone help with the following:

dy/dx = ay / (bx2 +xy )

a,b constants

thanks,
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The key is to consider the unknown function x(y) instead of y(x)
 

Attachments

  • ODE.JPG
    ODE.JPG
    41 KB · Views: 538
JJacquelin said:
The key is to consider the unknown function x(y) instead of y(x)

Hi. Thanks for that. However, I'm not convinced your use of the Ei is correct if you define:

Ei(x)=\int_{-\infty}^x \frac{e^t}{t}dt

If I start with the expression:

d(e^y t)=-\frac{e^y}{y}

then integrating from y_0, t_0 to y,t:

\int_{\substack{t=t_0 \\ y=y_0}}}^{y,t}d(e^y t)=-\int_{y_0}^y \frac{e^y}{y}dy

and get:

x(y)=\frac{e^y}{\frac{e^{y_0}}{x_0}-\int_{y_0}^y \frac{e^y}{y}dy}

Now, that agrees with numerical calculations but I'm not sure how I could express that in terms of Ei(x) though.
 
that agrees with numerical calculations but I'm not sure how I could express that in terms of Ei(x) though
Of course, you cannot express that in terms of Ei(x), but in terms of Ei(y).
May be, writing "in terms of" isn't the good wording. What I mean is that Ei(y) is the special function involved in the formula for x(y), as it was shown.
But I never said that Ei(x) is involved in an hypothetical formula for y(x). On the contrary, I said that the analytical inversion of x(y) in order to obtain y(x) is probably utopian with a finite number of elementary functions and even with classical special functions.
 
thanks guys! - I appreciate the help
 
JJacquelin said:
Of course, you cannot express that in terms of Ei(x), but in terms of Ei(y).
May be, writing "in terms of" isn't the good wording. What I mean is that Ei(y) is the special function involved in the formula for x(y), as it was shown.
But I never said that Ei(x) is involved in an hypothetical formula for y(x). On the contrary, I said that the analytical inversion of x(y) in order to obtain y(x) is probably utopian with a finite number of elementary functions and even with classical special functions.

Ok, I messed that up. I meant Ei(y) but I see as long as you define Ei(y) appropriately, I see what you mean.

Here's the numerical check of:

y'=\frac{y}{x^2+xy},\quad y(1)=1

Code:
mysol = NDSolve[{Derivative[1][y][x] == 
      y[x]/(x^2 + x*y[x]), y[1] == 1}, y, 
    {x, 1, 5}]; 

p1 = Plot[y[x] /. mysol, {x, 1, 5}]; 

myx[y_] := Exp[y]/(Exp[1] - 
     NIntegrate[Exp[u]/u, {u, 1, y}]); 

mytable = Table[{myx[y], y}, 
    {y, 1, 1.6, 0.01}]; 

p2 = ListPlot[mytable, Joined -> True]; 

Show[{p1, p2}]

Notice how I tabulate the numbers in terms of {x(y),y} to retrieve the inverse numerically. The two plots superimpose nicely.
 
For me where was no doubt.
Nevertheless its a good idea to check it numerically. Well donne !
 
Is this a research question, or just homework? If it's serious, I may be able to get somewhere with an analytic (explicit) solution... possibly.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K