Is the System of ODEs Defined by Matrix B Decoupled?

  • Thread starter Thread starter jimmycricket
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Odes System
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around determining if the system of ordinary differential equations (ODEs) defined by the matrix B is decoupled. The matrix in question is given as b=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&-1\\-4&3&-1\\0&0&-2\end{pmatrix} and participants are exploring the implications of decoupling in the context of solving the ODEs.

Discussion Character

  • Conceptual clarification, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants discuss the structure of the equations derived from the matrix B and whether the second equation can be solved independently. There is mention of diagonalization as a potential method to achieve uncoupling. Some participants express uncertainty about the decoupling status of the system and question the implications of finding a diagonal matrix.

Discussion Status

The conversation is ongoing, with participants offering differing views on the decoupling of the system. Some suggest that the system is decoupled based on the independence of certain equations, while others clarify that finding a diagonal matrix is necessary to confirm uncoupling. There is no explicit consensus yet, but the discussion is exploring various interpretations and approaches.

Contextual Notes

Participants are navigating the definitions of decoupling and the requirements for a system to be considered uncoupled. There is an emphasis on the need for clarity regarding the relationships between the variables in the ODEs.

jimmycricket
Messages
115
Reaction score
2
Given the matrix [itex]b=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&-1\\-4&3&-1\\0&0&-2\end{pmatrix}[/itex] decide if the system of ODEs, [itex]\frac{dx}{dt}=Bx[/itex] is decoupled. If yes find the general solution x=xh(t)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I would say the matrix is decoupled since the second equation involving [itex]2x[/itex]2(t) can be solved without the other two equations. Then the third equation can be solved without knowing [itex]x[/itex]1(t). We have:
[itex] x'_1 = -x_1 - x_3 \\ <br /> x'_2 = -4x_1 + 3x_2 - x_3 \\ <br /> x'_3 = -2x_3[/itex]
Im not sure where to go from here.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You may want to look into matrix diagonalization [1]. If B can written as A D A-1, where D is a diagonal matrix, can you then use this to rewrite you ODE system to a new uncoupled variable basis?

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diagonalizable_matrix
 
I have found the diagonal matrix,
[tex]D=<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> -1 & 0 & 0\\<br /> 0 & 3 & 0\\<br /> 0 & 0 & -2<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/tex]
I thought the matrix B was already uncoupled though. Is this not the case?
 
jimmycricket said:
Given the matrix [itex]b=\begin{pmatrix}-1&0&-1\\-4&3&-1\\0&0&-2\end{pmatrix}[/itex] decide if the system of ODEs, [itex]\frac{dx}{dt}=Bx[/itex] is decoupled. If yes find the general solution x=xh(t)

Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I would say the matrix is decoupled since the second equation involving [itex]2x[/itex]2(t) can be solved without the other two equations.
?
Do you mean the third equation? It involves only x3' and x3.
jimmycricket said:
Then the third equation can be solved without knowing [itex]x[/itex]1(t). We have:
[itex] x'_1 = -x_1 - x_3 \\ <br /> x'_2 = -4x_1 + 3x_2 - x_3 \\ <br /> x'_3 = -2x_3[/itex]
Im not sure where to go from here.

jimmycricket said:
I have found the diagonal matrix,
[tex]D=<br /> \begin{pmatrix}<br /> -1 & 0 & 0\\<br /> 0 & 3 & 0\\<br /> 0 & 0 & -2<br /> \end{pmatrix}[/tex]
I thought the matrix B was already uncoupled though. Is this not the case?
The system of equations was not uncoupled. The purpose of finding a diagonal matrix that is similar to B gives you a system that is uncoupled. In an uncoupled system, each equation involves only a single variable and its derivative.
 
That was an error on my part, what I meant was the matrix is decoupled since the second equation involving [itex]-2x_3(t)[/itex] can be solved without the other two equations and then we can solve for [itex]x_1(t)[/itex] without knowing [itex]x_2(t)[/itex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K