Constructing a 2nd order homogenous DE given fundamental solution

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around constructing a second-order homogeneous differential equation given a set of fundamental solutions, specifically {ex*sinx*cosx, ex*cos(2x)}. Participants explore the relationships between different bases of solutions and the implications for the corresponding differential equation.

Discussion Character

  • Homework-related
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant calculates the Wronskian determinant and attempts to derive the differential equation but expresses uncertainty about solving for q(x).
  • Another participant suggests that the original fundamental set could be simplified to {e^x*sin(2x), e^x*cos(2x)}, noting that both sets span the same function space.
  • Further, it is proposed that an alternative basis of solutions could be {e^xe^{2ix}, e^xe^{-2ix}}, which also spans the same solution space.
  • One participant reflects on the relationship between the roots of the characteristic equation and the fundamental solutions, indicating a potential for working backwards to find the differential equation.
  • Another participant questions whether the product sinx*cosx would yield a solution of 1/2*ex*sin(2x) and discusses their approach to the problem for partial credit.
  • There is a correction regarding the characteristic equation derived from the proposed differential equation, with a participant asserting that the roots are not as initially stated.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correct approach to the problem, with some suggesting alternative bases for the solution space and others debating the implications of these bases on the differential equation. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the correct form of the differential equation and the relationships between the proposed solutions.

Contextual Notes

Participants have not reached consensus on the correct differential equation or the implications of the various fundamental solutions. There are also unresolved mathematical steps related to the Wronskian and the derivation of q(x).

sagamore4110
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Given a set of fundamental solutions {ex*sinx*cosx, ex*cos(2x)}

Homework Equations


y''+p(x)y'+q(x)=0
det W(y1,y2) =Ce-∫p(x)dx

The Attempt at a Solution


I took the determinant of the matrix to get
e2x[cos(2x)cosxsinx-2sin(2x)sinxcosx-cos(2x)sinxcosx- cos2xcos(2x)+sin2xcos(2x)

Then using the identities sin2x+cos2x = 1 (for the last 2 terms) and sin(2x) = 2sinx*cosx (for the second term) and cancelling the 2 "cos(2x)cosxsinx" (first and third terms) I got
-e2x(sin2x+cos(2x))

Setting this equal to Ce-∫p(x)dx and trying to solve I got as far as
ln(-e2x(sin2x+cos(2x))/C) = -∫p(x)dx

and now I'm a little bit stuck, I also don't know how to solve for q(x) here. Thanks for the help!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
sagamore4110 said:

Homework Statement


Given a set of fundamental solutions {ex*sinx*cosx, ex*cos(2x)}

Homework Equations


y''+p(x)y'+q(x)=0
det W(y1,y2) =Ce-∫p(x)dx

The Attempt at a Solution


I took the determinant of the matrix to get
e2x[cos(2x)cosxsinx-2sin(2x)sinxcosx-cos(2x)sinxcosx- cos2xcos(2x)+sin2xcos(2x)

Then using the identities sin2x+cos2x = 1 (for the last 2 terms) and sin(2x) = 2sinx*cosx (for the second term) and cancelling the 2 "cos(2x)cosxsinx" (first and third terms) I got
-e2x(sin2x+cos(2x))

Setting this equal to Ce-∫p(x)dx and trying to solve I got as far as
ln(-e2x(sin2x+cos(2x))/C) = -∫p(x)dx

and now I'm a little bit stuck, I also don't know how to solve for q(x) here. Thanks for the help!
Your work seems like the long way around -- there's a much simpler way. Your fundamental set could also be ##\{e^x\sin(2x), e^x\cos(2x) \}##. The fundamental set as given and this one both span identical function spaces, and are bases for the same space.

It's also helpful to recognize that yet another basis would suffice: ##\{e^xe^{2ix}, e^xe^{-2ix} \} = \{e^{(1 + 2i)x}, e^{(1 - 2i)x} \}##. All three of these fundamental sets span the same solution space, and are bases for it.

Finally, if your fundamental set were ##\{ e^{r_1t}, e^{r_2t}\}##, do you understand that ##r_1## and ##r_2## are solutions to the quadratic characteristic equation? If so, you can work backwards from the characteristic equation to the homogeneous diff. equation with very little work.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: sagamore4110
Mark44 said:
Your work seems like the long way around -- there's a much simpler way. Your fundamental set could also be ##\{e^x\sin(2x), e^x\cos(2x) \}##. The fundamental set as given and this one both span identical function spaces, and are bases for the same space.

It's also helpful to recognize that yet another basis would suffice: ##\{e^xe^{2ix}, e^xe^{-2ix} \} = \{e^{(1 + 2i)x}, e^{(1 - 2i)x} \}##. All three of these fundamental sets span the same solution space, and are bases for it.

Finally, if your fundamental set were ##\{ e^{r_1t}, e^{r_2t}\}##, do you understand that ##r_1## and ##r_2## are solutions to the quadratic characteristic equation? If so, you can work backwards from the characteristic equation to the homogeneous diff. equation with very little work.

I actually realized this shortly after posting the problem, but wouldn't sinx*cosx end up with the solution being 1/2*ex*sin(2x)? That's the next part I got stuck on. I completed the problem using only 1+/-2i to get the quadratic in hopes for partial credit and got y''-2y'+3/2
 
sagamore4110 said:
I actually realized this shortly after posting the problem, but wouldn't sinx*cosx end up with the solution being 1/2*ex*sin(2x)?
Yes, it would, but it wouldn't matter. Constant multiples of the two original functions will still be a fundamental set (i.e., a basis for the solution space), so the constant 1/2 doesn't need to be included.
sagamore4110 said:
That's the next part I got stuck on. I completed the problem using only 1+/-2i to get the quadratic in hopes for partial credit and got y''-2y'+3/2
That's not the correct DE. Its characteristic equation would be ##r^2 - 2r + 3/2 = 0##, and the roots of that equation aren't 1 +/- 2i.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K