Determining wheter or not a non trivial solutions exists for higher order PDE's

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter roldy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Higher order
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

This discussion centers on determining the existence of non-trivial solutions for higher-order partial differential equations (PDEs), specifically the equation X''''(x) + α²X(x) = 0 under boundary conditions U(0,t) = u(1,t) = uxx(0,t) = uxx(1,t) = 0 for t ≥ 0. The participant seeks a more efficient method to ascertain solutions without deriving the general solution, particularly for the case where λ > 0. The consensus is that there is no straightforward observational method, and the eigenvalues must be real due to their representation of frequencies in beam equations.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of higher-order partial differential equations (PDEs)
  • Familiarity with boundary value problems and boundary conditions
  • Knowledge of eigenvalues and their significance in physical systems
  • Experience with solving beam equations in mathematical physics
NEXT STEPS
  • Research methods for solving higher-order PDEs, focusing on eigenvalue problems
  • Explore the Sturm-Liouville theory and its applications to boundary value problems
  • Study the implications of real eigenvalues in mechanical systems, particularly in beam theory
  • Investigate numerical methods for approximating solutions to PDEs when analytical solutions are complex
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineering students focusing on differential equations, particularly those dealing with beam theory and boundary value problems.

roldy
Messages
206
Reaction score
2
Is there a way to determine if a non trivial solution exists for higher order PDE's? For example suppose I have the following.

[itex]X''''(x) + \alpha^2X(x)=0[/itex]

With given conditions U(0,t) = u(1,t) = uxx(0,t) = uxx(1,t) = 0 if t≥0

The general solution will have 4 constants of which I will have to solve for using the above conditions. However, if this shows up on a test I will not have enough time to do this and the other parts that go along with this step. There's got to be a simple way to do this just by observation.

Note: This step is part of a process to solve the beam equation. I've done the case with λ=0 and λ<0. The case for λ>0 is where I need to find a shorter faster way. I have tried searching online for solution examples to solving this but all the solutions just jump to the case where λ<0.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
No, there is no "simple way to do this just by observation".
 
Is there any other way without going through the process of figuring out the general solution? My professor hinted that there was but I can't figure it out. Perhaps because this is a beam, the eigenvalues have to be real due to the fact that they represent the frequencies.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K