How can the Frobenius method be used to find a solution for a second-order ODE?

zass
Messages
5
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Use the Frobenius method, for an expansion about x=0, to find ONE solution of

xy''+y'+(1/4)y=0

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



starting with an assumption of y1=\sumanxn+r
and plugging it into the ODE, i found

y=\frac{-1}{4}\suma0xn/(n!)2

i think this can be equated to:
y=(-1/4)a0e2x/x, but when i plug it into the ODE it doesn't equal 0, and thus isn't a solution of the ODE, can anyone see where I've gone wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Welcome to PF!

Hi zass! Welcome to PF! :smile:
zass said:
… i think this can be equated to:
y=(-1/4)a0e2x/x, but when i plug it into the ODE it doesn't equal 0, and thus isn't a solution of the ODE, can anyone see where I've gone wrong?

Difficult to say without seeing your full calculations, but did you take into account that the equations for n = 0 and 1 are usually different from the equations for general n?
 
I think i accounted for it
Here's my working out, maybe u can see if I've made a mistake:
Using the initial assumption I've found u' and u'', then subbed them into the ode:
\sum^{inf}_{n=0}(n+r)(n+r-1)anxn+r-2 + \sum^{inf}_{n=0}(n+r)anxn+r-2 + (1/4)\sum^{inf}_{n=0}anxn+r-1 = 0

Simplifying and collecting terms and sum:
=\sum^{inf}_{n=1}((n+r)(n+r-1)an + (n+r)an + (1/4)an-1)xn+r-2 + (0+r)(0+r-1)a0x0+r-2 + (0+r)a0x0+r-2 = 0

Equating coefficients i found
r2 = 0

And thus the series now becomes
n(n-1)an + nan + (1/4)an-1 = 0

Which gives the recurrence formula:
an = \frac{-a<sub>n-1</sub>}{4n<sup>2</sup>} , n=1,2,3,...inf

then taking the first few terms i found
an = a0/(n!)2
and then just subbed back into the initial assumption made. I can't see anything wrong with what I've done :confused:
 
Hi zass! :smile:

(have a sigma: ∑ and an infinity: ∞ and if you're using tex, ∞ is \infty, and sub and sup are _{} and ^{} :wink:)

You've left out (-1/4)n

does that make it ok?:smile:
 
ah of course! for some reason i thought that'd just be a constant.
finally got a solution that fits :biggrin:
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top