Can you help with this 2nd-order, linear, homog, w/const.coeff proof?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter diligence
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linear Proof
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around proving that a solution of the second-order linear homogeneous differential equation with constant coefficients, \( ay'' + by' + cy = 0 \), is either everywhere zero or can take the value zero at most once, given that the roots of the characteristic equation are real. The scope includes theoretical reasoning and attempts at proof.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the roots of the characteristic equation are real, the solution can take one of two forms: \( y(t) = c_1 e^{r_1 t} + c_2 e^{r_2 t} \) or \( y(t) = c_1 e^{r_1 t} + c_2 t e^{r_2 t} \).
  • Others argue that if both \( c_1 \) and \( c_2 \) are zero, the solution is everywhere zero; otherwise, it can only equal zero at most once due to the nature of exponential functions.
  • A later reply suggests considering critical points of the solution to demonstrate that there is at most one critical point where the solution can equal zero.
  • Some participants mention the existence and uniqueness theorem, stating that the solution is determined by its values at two points, but this is contested regarding its applicability to boundary value problems.
  • One participant reflects on their initial confusion and acknowledges that setting the solutions equal to zero is a valid approach to finding the number of times the solution can equal zero.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the applicability of the existence and uniqueness theorem to the problem at hand, indicating a lack of consensus on this point. While some agree on the nature of the solutions, the discussion remains unresolved regarding the best approach to proving the claim.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the discussion regarding the assumptions made about the applicability of the existence and uniqueness theorem to different types of problems, as well as the handling of critical points in the proposed proofs.

diligence
Messages
143
Reaction score
0
Question:

If the roots of the characteristic equation are real, show that a solution of ay" + by' + cy = 0 is either everywhere zero or else can take on the value zero at most once.


Okay, if the roots of the CE are real, then the solution takes on one of two forms:
(i) y(t) = c_1 e^(r_1 t) + c_2 e^(r_2 t)
or
(ii) y(t) = c_1 e^(r_1 t) + c_2 t e^(r_2 t)


So now either both c_1 and c_2 are both zero, making the solution everywhere zero, or else if c_1 and c_2 are not both zero, the solution can only have the zero value at most once. I think this is because the exponential function is either always increasing or always decreasing, or because if you combine two exponential functions that it only changes from increasing to decreasing at most once (is that even correct?)...but i have no idea how to PROVE this!

maybe take critical points of the solution and show that there is at most one critical point?

can anyone help with this?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
diligence said:
Question:

If the roots of the characteristic equation are real, show that a solution of ay" + by' + cy = 0 is either everywhere zero or else can take on the value zero at most once.Okay, if the roots of the CE are real, then the solution takes on one of two forms:
(i) y(t) = c_1 e^(r_1 t) + c_2 e^(r_2 t)
or
(ii) y(t) = c_1 e^(r_1 t) + c_2 t e^(r_2 t)

In case ii the root is repeated: y(t) = (c1 + c2t)ert

So now either both c_1 and c_2 are both zero, making the solution everywhere zero, or else if c_1 and c_2 are not both zero, the solution can only have the zero value at most once. I think this is because the exponential function is either always increasing or always decreasing, or because if you combine two exponential functions that it only changes from increasing to decreasing at most once (is that even correct?)...but i have no idea how to PROVE this!

maybe take critical points of the solution and show that there is at most one critical point?

can anyone help with this?

In each case, why not try setting them equal to 0 and see how many t values work?
 
But a simpler proof is this: any linear equations with constant coefficients (the coefficient of the highest derivative being non-zero, of course) satisfies the existence and uniqueness theorem. In particular, the solution to a second order linear equation with constant coefficients is determined by its value at two points. Since y= 0 for all x satisfies the differential equation, it is the only solution that is 0 at those two points.
 
HallsofIvy said:
But a simpler proof is this: any linear equations with constant coefficients (the coefficient of the highest derivative being non-zero, of course) satisfies the existence and uniqueness theorem. In particular, the solution to a second order linear equation with constant coefficients is determined by its value at two points. Since y= 0 for all x satisfies the differential equation, it is the only solution that is 0 at those two points.

No. You are thinking of existence and uniqueness theorem for the initial value problem, which doesn't apply to two point boundary value problems. Look at:

y'' + y = 0, y(0) = y(pi) = 0

which is satisfied by y = sin(x).
 
LCKurtz said:
In case ii the root is repeated: y(t) = (c1 + c2t)ert



In each case, why not try setting them equal to 0 and see how many t values work?


Thanks. I was overthinking it. I had set them to zero like you suggested but when i couldn't take the logarithm i gave up, thinking i need to find a new method...but that's the proof right there because it can't equal zero unless the coefficients or t equal zero, which can only happen at most once. So it's either everywhere zero (coeff.=0) or at most equal to zero once (t=0).

Thanks!
 
i need to learn to avoid what hindered me in this problem. Specifically, the fact that I immediately discarded a null result, thinking that maybe i did something wrong, when in fact, that is the result!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K