cse63146 said:
would the phase portrait look the same if (for example) the original equation was y'' + 4y' + 13y = 3cost2t ?
This is the question I said I'd come back to. The short answer is I don't think so. This nonhomogeneous 2nd order equation is equivalent to the homogeneous 4th order equation
(D
2 + 4D + 13)(D
2 + 4)y = 0
The characteristic equation is (r
2 + 4r + 13)(r
2 + 4) = 0, and the roots of this equation are r = -2 +/-3i, +/-2i. These are also the eigenvalues, and the corresponding eigenfunctions are e
(-2 +/-3i)t and e
(+/-2i)t. With the usual sleight of hand of taking suitable linear combinations to eliminate the imaginary parts, the eigenfunctions can be written as e
-2tsin3t, e
-2tcos3t, sin2t, and cos 2t.
Unlike the homogeneous 2nd order problem (which is equivalent to a system of two first-order DEs, and for which the solution space is two-dimensional), for the nonhomogeneous 2nd order system above, the solution space is four-dimensional. The eigenfunctions y
1,2 = e
(-2 +/-3i)t of the homogeneous DE span a two-dimensional space, and you can plot a graph of y
1 vs. y
2, which is nearly what you did in your phase portrait of y vs v (= y').
With the nonhomogeneous 2nd order problem (or the related homogeneous 4th problem), the eigenfunctions span a four-dimensional space, so right away there are problems in visualizing it. The highest dimension phase portrait shown in the text I've been looking at is three.
So anyway, based on a relatively quick perusal of my book, I don't believe that you can get a phase portrait for the nonhomogeneous equation you gave. It's possible that the authors are doing something to look at a projection of a higher dimension portrait down to a couple of dimensions, but I didn't catch that in my quick perusal.