1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Frobenius Method

  1. Aug 14, 2008 #1
    I'm a little confused with ODEs. After two weeks of trying to figure out Frobenius I have finally realized that there seems to be two different power set used by all of my three books for the y substitution but I am unsure when to use either one. Here are the two sets that i'm talking about:

    Set 1 from section 6.1

    [tex] y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n x^n [/tex]

    [tex] y\prime = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n C_n x^{n-1}[/tex]

    [tex] y\prime\prime = \sum_{n=2}^\infty n(n-1) C_n x^{n-2}[/tex]

    set 2 from section 6.2

    [tex] y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty n C_n x^{n-1} [/tex]

    [tex] y\prime = \sum_{n=0}^\infty n C_n x^{n-1} [/tex]

    [tex] y\prime\prime = \sum_{n=0}^\infty n(n-1) C_n x^{n-2} [/tex]

    I think I have come to understand that I should use set 1 if and only if all of the singular points are irregular and set 2 when I have at least one regular singular point. Is this correct? If not, when is it appropriate to use set 1 rather than set 2? Or is set 2 only designed to work with Frobenius' method while set 1 only works lacking a Taylor power series expansion?
  2. jcsd
  3. Aug 14, 2008 #2
    In your 2nd set, why are you starting the series from 0? for y' you would get 0 for n = 0 and for y'' you would get 0 for n = 0 and n = 1. It just seems like they are shifting indices around.
  4. Aug 14, 2008 #3
    That's what I thought as well when I first realized that little difference within the DE books I am basing the sets on. Considering that they we're using this method to get something backed by primary source papers I stopped trying to pass it off as a typo within my books. Apparently with the solutions manual I have available to me, both sets are being used, when and why this is the case, I really have no idea. Hopefully somebody does.
  5. Aug 15, 2008 #4


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Neither of those is correct for Frobenius' method.

    If you have a regular singular point then Frobenius' method uses
    [tex]\sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n x^{n+ c}[/tex]
    where c is determined from the indicial equation, essentially requiring that C0 not be 0. c in not necessarily positive or even an integer.

    If you have an irregular singular point, there may not be a series solution at all.
  6. Aug 16, 2008 #5
    I agree with HallsofIvy.

    If x=0 is an ordinary point then either set 1 or set 2 is a valid expansion. However when using set 2 we must assume that Cn=0 if n is a negative integer (in case we want to replace the dummy index n).
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?

Similar Discussions: Frobenius Method
  1. Frobenius method? (Replies: 5)

  2. Frobenius Method (Replies: 3)