Find A and B: Solving a Tricky Partial Fractions Question

Click For Summary
To solve for A and B in the equation x + 1 = A(x - 2) + B(x - 2), it's crucial to choose values of x that simplify the equation without eliminating both variables. Using the identity approach, one can derive two equations from the linear independence of functions involved. The denominator being a perfect square requires a different partial fraction decomposition: (s + 1)/(s - 2)² = A/(s - 2) + B/(s - 2)². This leads to the equations A = 1 and B = 3, allowing for the successful determination of A and B. The discussion emphasizes the importance of proper decomposition and the identity method in solving partial fractions.
cabellos
Messages
76
Reaction score
1
dumb partial fractions question...

suppose i get x+1=A(x-2)+B(x-2)

how do you then find A and B?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Which values of x could you chose so that the equation simplified to leave you with a single unknown?
 
By demanding you've got an IDENTITY there, and remembering that the functions f(x)=1 and g(x)=x are linearly INDEPENDENT functions.
This will give you two equations for your two unknows A and B.
 
But say I use 2 as my x value, it removes both A and B in this equation...
 
Oops, I didn't see that closely!
You've made a mistake somewhere.
 
i haven't made a mistake i have to find the inverse laplace transform of s+1/(s^2 - 4s + 4) and I am using partial fractions to do this...but I am stuck now...:cry:
 
cabellos said:
i haven't made a mistake i have to find the inverse laplace transform of s+1/(s^2 - 4s + 4) and I am using partial fractions to do this...but I am stuck now...:cry:
The denominator is a perfect square. You need to use a different form for the sum of fractions. Have you seen this before?

Is that s+1/(s^2 - 4s + 4) or (s+1)/(s^2 - 4s + 4)??

I assume the second based on your original equation.
 
Last edited:
ok thanks - does this mean i find the inverse laplace transform of 1/(s-2)^2 and add this to the inverse LT of s/(s-2)^2 ?

I can do the first that would be te^2t wouldn't it?

Not sure about the second part? :cry:
 
cabellos said:
ok thanks - does this mean i find the inverse laplace transform of 1/(s-2)^2 and add this to the inverse LT of s/(s-2)^2 ?

I can do the first that would be te^2t wouldn't it?

Not sure about the second part? :cry:
If you can use tables, go here

http://www.vibrationdata.com/Laplace.htm

2.10 confirms your first term, and 2.15 cannot be used for a perfect square denominator. Partial fractions will get rid of the s in the numerator for you, and you will get a 2.9 form and a 2.10 form. Yes??
 
  • #10
i can see the first relationship with 2.10 but what do i need to do to s/(s-2)^2 ? use partial fractions? Thats what i tried at the start but how do i find A and B if s = A(s-2) + B(s-2) ?
 
  • #11
cabellos said:
i can see the first relationship with 2.10 but what do i need to do to s/(s-2)^2 ? use partial fractions? Thats what i tried at the start but how do i find A and B if s = A(s-2) + B(s-2) ?
You cannot use that form when the denominator is a perfect square. Use
(s + 1)/(s - 2)² = A/(s - 2) + B/(s - 2)²
 
  • #12
how does that change anything...still can't solve A and B??
 
  • #13
cabellos said:
how does that change anything...still can't solve A and B??
Sure you can.

(s + 1)/(s - 2)² = A/(s - 2) + B/(s - 2)²

s + 1 = A*(s - 2) + B

s + 1 = As - 2A + B
arildno said:
By demanding you've got an IDENTITY there, and remembering that the functions f(x)=1 and g(x)=x are linearly INDEPENDENT functions.
This will give you two equations for your two unknows A and B.
A = 1

1 = -2A + B

B = 1 + 2A = 3
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
753
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
911
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K