Determine if the non-linear set of equations has unique solution

  • Thread starter Thread starter lep11
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Non-linear Set
Click For Summary
The discussion centers on determining the uniqueness of solutions for a non-linear set of equations near the origin. The implicit function theorem is initially considered, but the Jacobian at the origin is shown to be non-surjective, indicating that the theorem cannot be applied directly. A counterexample is suggested to demonstrate that no function can satisfy the equations in any neighborhood of the origin. It is concluded that there is no unique solution in any neighborhood of the origin, as the equations do not allow for a function that meets the required conditions. The final verification confirms the reasoning is sound.
lep11
Messages
380
Reaction score
7

Homework Statement


Determine if the following set of equations has unique solution of the form ##g(z)=(x,y)## in the n-hood of the origin. $$\begin{cases} xyz+\sin(xyz)=0 \\ x+y+z=0 \end{cases}$$

Homework Equations


I assume I am supposed to use the implicit function theorem
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Implicit_function_theorem

The Attempt at a Solution


Let's consider function ##F:ℝ^3\rightarrow ℝ^2, F(x,y,z)=(xyz+\sin(xyz),x+y+z).## Now ##F(0,0,0)=(0,0)## and ##F\in{C^{1}}## but the Jacobian of ##F## at the origin is: ##
J_f(0)=[Df(0)]=\begin{bmatrix}
0 & 0 & 0 \\
1 & 1 &1
\end{bmatrix},## which implies that ##[Df(0)]## is not surjective, thus the implicit function theorem doesn't apply directly. I think the next step is to define another function such that we can apply the implicit function theorem to that and maybe find a solution which uniqueness is guaranteed by the theorem. Am I on the right track?

 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
lep11 said:
Am I on the right track?
No, I don't think so. Read the question carefully:
lep11 said:
Determine if
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Krylov said:
No, I don't think so. Read the question carefully:
O.k. How would one proceed in this case? Should I construct a counterexample?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
lep11 said:
O.k. How would one proceed in this case? Should I construct a counterexample?
If the answer to the question in the problem were positive, there would exist ##\epsilon > 0## and a function ##g : (-\epsilon,+\epsilon) \times (-\epsilon,+\epsilon) \to \mathbb{R}## such that for all ##x,y \in (-\epsilon,+\epsilon)## the triple ##(x,y,z) = (x,y, g(x,y))## satisfies the system of equations.

Please make sure you understand why this is.

It follows from the system of equations that such a function cannot exist, no matter how small you choose ##\epsilon > 0## to be. It is up to you to explain why this is. (You do not need any theorems for this.)
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I think I got the right intuition, but I am not sure if this counterexample is rigorious enough.

If we consider the function ##F##, we notice that ##F(\epsilon,-\epsilon,0)=(0,0)## ##∀\epsilon>0##.
Because we can choose ##\epsilon## to be arbitrarily small, ##\nexists{R>0}## such that n-hood of the origin ##B(0,R)## would contain a unique solution ##(x,y,z)## such that ##F(x,y,z)=0##. Thus the set of equations doesn't have a unique solution in any n-hood of the origin.
 
Last edited:
Could someone please verify if I got it right?
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
952
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K