Can Variable Coefficients in an ODE Be Simplified for Easier Solution?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a specific second-order differential equation with variable coefficients. Participants explore various methods for obtaining solutions, including analytical approaches and substitutions, while seeking to avoid integral forms in the final solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant inquires about the possibility of solving the differential equation without resorting to series solutions and asks if substitutions can simplify variable coefficients to constants.
  • Another participant suggests using Laplace transforms for finding an analytical solution, expressing skepticism about the utility of the method of undetermined coefficients.
  • A participant discusses a substitution that transforms the homogeneous equation into a form that potentially involves Bessel functions, but expresses difficulty in obtaining a particular integral without integral forms.
  • There is mention of the method of variation of parameters, but concerns are raised about the complexity of the Wronskian leading to integral forms in the solution.
  • A later reply introduces the concept of Green's functions as a potential method for solving the equation, indicating that the solution may still involve integrals and may not yield a closed form.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing opinions on the effectiveness of various methods for solving the differential equation, with no consensus on a preferred approach or the feasibility of avoiding integral forms in the solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight limitations related to the complexity of the Wronskian and the nature of variable coefficients in the differential equation, which may restrict the availability of straightforward solutions.

iwasthere
Messages
2
Reaction score
0
i want to solve the following differential equation:

y''(x) - A*y'(x) - B*exp(-C*A*x)*y(x) = M*exp(-N*x)
A,B,C,M,N are constants.

-is there any solution of the above equation (except series solution)?
-is there any proper substitution that can turn the variable coefficient into constant?
-can i use method of undetermined coefficient to obtain particular integral?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'd try using laplace transforms to see if it has any analytical non-series solution. No idea if you can use undetermined coefficients, but I can't imagine why you'd want to. A transform looks much simpler, especially with the e term in there.
 
thanks for the reply...

for the homogeneous equation:
y''(x) - A*y'(x) - B*exp(-C*A*x)*y(x) = 0

if the substitution z =exp(-C*A*x) is used,it becomes something like the following one( if i am not wrong):

z*y''(z) + (1 + 1/C)*y'(z) - B/(C*A)^2*y(z) = 0

which has a solution containing bessel function. But how can i obtain the particular integral (without containing any integral form) for :

y''(x) - A*y'(x) - B*exp(-C*A*x)*y(x) = M*exp(-N*x)

i can use method of variation of parameter for particular integral, but the wronskian becomes complicated (i have to leave the solution in integral form).
therefore i was thinking about method of undetermined coefficient to obtain the particular integral.

i need the general solution without keeping any integral form in the solution.
please help me...
many many thanks in advance.......
 
Last edited:
Angry Citizen said:
I'd try using laplace transforms to see if it has any analytical non-series solution. No idea if you can use undetermined coefficients, but I can't imagine why you'd want to. A transform looks much simpler, especially with the e term in there.

I don't think that will work well. I don't remember Laplace transforms being very good for ODE's with variable coefficients. In particular, the \exp(-c x)y(x) term will give a Y(s+c) term, which means the Laplace-domain equation for the Laplace transform variable Y(s) is a functional equation instead of an algebraic equation.

iwasthere said:
thanks for the reply...

for the homogeneous equation:
y''(x) - A*y'(x) - B*exp(-C*A*x)*y(x) = 0

if the substitution z =exp(-C*A*x) is used,it becomes something like the following one( if i am not wrong):

z*y''(z) + (1 + 1/C)*y'(z) - B/(C*A)^2*y(z) = 0

which has a solution containing bessel function. But how can i obtain the particular integral (without containing any integral form) for :

y''(x) - A*y'(x) - B*exp(-C*A*x)*y(x) = M*exp(-N*x)

i can use method of variation of parameter for particular integral, but the wronskian becomes complicated (i have to leave the solution in integral form).
therefore i was thinking about method of undetermined coefficient to obtain the particular integral.

i need the general solution without keeping any integral form in the solution.
please help me...
many many thanks in advance.......

You may have to leave the solution in integral form. There's not necessarily a nice, closed form solution. Do you know what a Green's function is? Consider a modified form of your equation:

\mathcal L G(x;\xi) = \delta(x-\xi),

where \delta(x-\xi) is the dirac delta function and \mathcal L is the differential operator,

\mathcal L = \frac{d^2}{dx^2} -A \frac{d}{dx} - B\exp(-ACx)

If you solve that equation for G(x;\xi), then to the solution for your equation with the M\exp(-Nx) is just

y(x) = M\int d\xi G(x;\xi)\exp(-N\xi),

where the integral is taken over your range of x. In a one-dimensional problem like yours, this is very similar to the variations of parameters method, I think, but this one generalizes to higher dimensions. Your solution may still be in terms of an integral, and there may be no way around that.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
7K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K