Diff equation by diagonalization

  • Thread starter Thread starter EvLer
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diagonalization
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around solving an initial value problem for a differential equation of the form dx/dt = Ax, where A is a 2x2 matrix. The original poster attempts to diagonalize the matrix but encounters difficulties due to a repeated eigenvalue and insufficient eigenvectors.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants explore the implications of diagonalizability on the existence of solutions, with some suggesting that solutions can exist even if the matrix is not diagonalizable. Others discuss alternative methods such as using Jordan Normal form and treating the system as two separate equations.

Discussion Status

There is an ongoing exploration of different approaches to solving the differential equation. Some participants provide insights into the matrix exponential and its relationship to the solution, while others correct previous statements regarding the integration process. The discussion reflects a mix of interpretations and methods without reaching a consensus.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the complexities of the problem, including the implications of having a repeated eigenvalue and the potential need for additional techniques like the Jordan Normal form. There are also indications of sign errors in the integration process that are being addressed.

EvLer
Messages
454
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


solve initial value problem for the equation dx/dt = Ax where A =
[1 -1]
[0 1]
x(0) = [1, 1]T

x(t) = S*elambda*t*S -1*x(0)
where S is diagonal matrix, lambda is eigenvalue;

The Attempt at a Solution


I tried to diagonalize it, but I get one eigenvalue =1 mult 2 and I don't have enough eigenvectors to get S!
Am I missing something? and how do i solve it?

Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
The solution to [itex]dx/dt = Ax[/itex] for scalar x is [itex]x=\exp(At)x_0[/itex]. This extends to multiple dimensions with [itex]exp(At) = \sum_r A^r t^r/r![/itex]
 
ok, so you are saying that A does not have to be diagonalizable for a solution to exist?

I am trying to see relations to the diagonalization
 
?? Every linear equation has solutions! Where did you get the idea that the matrix had to be diagonalizable?

Diagonalizable makes it easier but when a matrix is not diagonalizable you can still get the "Jordan Normal form".

The simplest way to solve this equation is two treat it as two equations:
dx/dt= x- y, dy/dt= y, since they are "partially disconnected": you can solve for y immediately: from dy/dt= y, y= Cet. Then the second equation becomes dx/dt= x- Cet or dx/dt- x= -Cet. That has integrating factor e-t: multiplying the equation by e-t give e-tdx/dt- e-tx= d(e-tx)/dt= e-t(Cet)= C. Integrating, e-tx= Ct+ D so x= Ctet+ Det. With x(0)= D= 1 and y(0)= C= 1, we have x(t)= tet+ et, y(t)= et.

Putting that back into matrix form that is x(t)= [tet+ et, et].
 
This is a linear equation of the form [itex]d\vec x/dt = \mathbf A \vec x[/itex]. If A and x were scalars, the solution would obviously be [itex]x=\exp(At)x(0)[/itex]. This is true for matrices as well:

[tex]\vec x \exp(\mathbf At) \vec x(0)[/tex]

where [itex]\exp(At)[/itex] is the matrix exponential

[tex]\exp(At) = \sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{A^n t^n}{n!}[/tex]

Writing

[tex]\mathbf A = \mathbf 1_{2x2} - \mathbf B[/itex]<br /> <br /> where<br /> <br /> [tex]\mathbf 1_{2x2}[/tex] is the [itex]2x2[/itex] identity matrix and<br /> <br /> [tex]\mathbf B \equiv \bmatrix 0 & 1 \\ 0 & 0 \endbmatrix[/tex]<br /> <br /> Then<br /> <br /> [tex]\mathbf A^2 = \mathbf 1_{2x2} - 2\mathbf B[/tex]<br /> <br /> and in general<br /> <br /> [tex]\mathbf A^n = \mathbf 1_{2x2} - n\mathbf B[/tex]<br /> <br /> Thus<br /> <br /> [tex]\exp(At) =\mathbf 1_{2x2}\sum_{n=0}^\infty \frac{t^n}{n!} - \mathbf B \sum_{n=1}^\infty \frac{t^n}{(n-1)!}[/tex]<br /> <br /> Simplifying,<br /> <br /> [tex]\exp(At) =\mathbf 1_{2x2}\exp t - \mathbf B t\exp t[/tex]<br /> <br /> The desired solution is<br /> <br /> [tex]\vec x(t) =(\mathbf 1_{2x2}\exp t - \mathbf B t\exp t)\bmatrix 1 \\ 1\endbmatrix = \bmatrix 1-t\\1\endbmatrix \exp t[/tex][/tex]
 
HallsofIvy said:
The simplest way to solve this equation is two treat it as two equations:
dx/dt= x- y, dy/dt= y, since they are "partially disconnected": you can solve for y immediately: from dy/dt= y, y= Cet. Then the second equation becomes dx/dt= x- Cet or dx/dt- x= -Cet. That has integrating factor e-t: multiplying the equation by e-t give e-tdx/dt- e-tx= d(e-tx)/dt= e-t(Cet)= C.

There is a sign error here. That should be d(e-tx)/dt = -C

Integrating, e-tx= Ct+ D so x= Ctet+ Det. With x(0)= D= 1 and y(0)= C= 1, we have x(t)= tet+ et, y(t)= et.

Putting that back into matrix form that is x(t)= [tet+ et, et].

With the correct sign, integrating yields e-tx= D-Ct, so x= (D-Ct)et. With x(0)=y(0)=1, C=D=1, so x(t)= et-tet, y(t)= et. In matrix form,
[tex]\vec x(t) = \bmatrix e^t-te^t \\ e^t\endbmatrix[/tex]
 
Thanks for the correction. One of these days, I really need to learn arithmetic!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
9
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K