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

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the application of the Frobenius method to find a solution for a second-order ordinary differential equation (ODE) given by xy'' + y' + (1/4)y = 0, specifically focusing on an expansion about x=0.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to use a power series expansion and derives a recurrence relation for the coefficients. Some participants question whether all necessary terms were considered in the calculations, particularly for the initial coefficients.

Discussion Status

The discussion has progressed with participants providing feedback on the original poster's calculations. A potential oversight regarding a missing term has been identified, which may have led to confusion in finding a valid solution. The original poster expresses satisfaction upon realizing the mistake and finding a fitting solution.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraints of using the Frobenius method and are focused on ensuring all terms in the series expansion are accounted for correctly. There is an emphasis on the differences in equations for specific values of n compared to general n.

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=[tex]\sum[/tex]anxn+r
and plugging it into the ODE, i found

y=[tex]\frac{-1}{4}[/tex][tex]\sum[/tex]a0xn/(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:
[tex]\sum[/tex][tex]^{inf}_{n=0}[/tex](n+r)(n+r-1)anxn+r-2 + [tex]\sum[/tex][tex]^{inf}_{n=0}[/tex](n+r)anxn+r-2 + (1/4)[tex]\sum[/tex][tex]^{inf}_{n=0}[/tex]anxn+r-1 = 0

Simplifying and collecting terms and sum:
=[tex]\sum[/tex][tex]^{inf}_{n=1}[/tex]((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 = [tex]\frac{-a<sub>n-1</sub>}{4n<sup>2</sup>}[/tex] , 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:
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K