MHB Induction on the number of equations

  • Thread starter Thread starter mathmari
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Induction
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving a theorem by induction regarding differential operators and equations. It establishes that for a system of $n$ equations represented as $\phi: \displaystyle{\bigwedge_{j=1}^n L_j x=f_j}$, one can reduce it to the form $Lx=f \land \psi$, where $\psi$ does not contain any variable $x$. The proof is structured with a base case for $n=1$, an inductive hypothesis for $n=k$, and an inductive step for $n=k+1$, demonstrating that the system can be simplified accordingly.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential operators, specifically the notation $Lx=f$.
  • Familiarity with mathematical induction principles.
  • Knowledge of systems of equations and their representations.
  • Basic understanding of differential equations and their properties.
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of differential operators in depth.
  • Explore advanced topics in mathematical induction and its applications in proofs.
  • Learn about systems of linear differential equations and their solutions.
  • Investigate the role of the Wronskian in determining the independence of solutions.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying differential equations, and anyone interested in the application of induction in mathematical proofs.

mathmari
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
4,984
Reaction score
7
Hey! :o

Let $L$ be a differential operator.

We suppose that we have $n$ equations, that means $\phi: \displaystyle{\bigwedge_{j=1}^n L_j x=f_j}$ and we assume that $\phi$ can be written as $Lx=f \land \psi$, where $\psi$ doesn't contain any $x$.

We prove this by induction on the number of equations, $n$.

  • Base case: For $n=1$ we have one equation, so it is of the form $Lx=f$.
  • Inductive hypothesis: We suppose that it holds for $n=k$, i.e., if $\phi$ contains $k$ equations, then we can reduce it into the form $$Lx=f \land \psi \ \ \text{ where } \psi \text{ doesn't contain any } x.$$
  • Inductive step: We will show that it holds for $n=k+1$, i.e., if we have $k+1$ equations we can reduce this system into the form $$Lx=f \land \psi \ \ \text{ where } \psi \text{ doesn't contain any } x.$$
    From the inductive hypothesis we know that we can reduce the first $k$ equations into the above form. So we have two equations that contain $x$ and its derivatives.

Is this correct so far? (Wondering)

How could we continue? (Wondering)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Is the inductive step as follows? (Wondering) Inductive step: We will show that it holds for $n=k+1$, i.e., if we have $k+1$ equations we can reduce this system into the form $$Lx=f \land \psi \ \ \text{ where } \psi \text{ doesn't contain any } x.$$
From the inductive hypothesis we know that we can reduce the first $k$ equations into the above form. So we have two equations that contain $x$ and its derivatives. We add these two equations and we get a new differential equation $Lx=f$. So the initial system is equivalent to the new differential equation $Lx=f$.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
  • · Replies 29 ·
Replies
29
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K