Justifying the Method of Undetermined Coefficients

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the method of undetermined coefficients in the context of ordinary differential equations, specifically focusing on justifying the entries in a table that outlines various forms of particular solutions. Participants explore the application of the annihilator method and the derivation of specific equations related to this method.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a table detailing the forms of particular solutions for different types of functions, using the annihilator method.
  • Another participant suggests a minor edit regarding a typographical error in the table, indicating a potential inconsistency in notation.
  • A third participant proposes a revision to the operator notation used in defining the linear operator, emphasizing the need for consistency.
  • Subsequent replies acknowledge the edits and express appreciation for the suggestions, indicating a collaborative effort to improve the clarity of the post.
  • There is a light-hearted exchange regarding the notation preferences, with participants sharing their thoughts on the original source of the notation.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally agree on the need for clarity and consistency in notation, as evidenced by the edits made. However, there are differing preferences regarding the notation style, indicating a lack of consensus on the best approach.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the original notation was derived from an old textbook, which may influence their preferences and suggestions for consistency.

MarkFL
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
13,284
Reaction score
12
The annihilator method can be used to derived the entries in the following table for the method of undetermined coefficients, familiar to all students of ordinary differential equations:

[TABLE="class: grid, width: 750, align: center"]
[TR]
[TD]Type[/TD]
[TD]$g(x)$[/TD]
[TD]$y_p(x)$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](I)[/TD]
[TD]$p_n(x)=a_nx^n+\cdots+a_1x+a_0$[/TD]
[TD]$x^sP_n(x)=x^s\left(A_nx^n+\cdots+A_1x+A_0 \right)$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](II)[/TD]
[TD]$ae^{\alpha x}$[/TD]
[TD]$x^sAe^{\alpha x}$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](III)[/TD]
[TD]$a\cos(\beta x)+b\sin(\beta x)$[/TD]
[TD]$x^s\left(A\cos(\beta x)+B\sin(\beta x) \right)$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](IV)[/TD]
[TD]$p_n(x)e^{\alpha x}$[/TD]
[TD]$x^sP_n(x)e^{\alpha x}$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](V)[/TD]
[TD]$p_n(x)\cos(\beta x)+q_m\sin(\beta x)$
where $q_m(x)=b_mx^m+\cdots+b_1x+b_0$[/TD]
[TD]$x^s\left(P_N(x)\cos(\beta x)+Q_N(x)\sin(\beta x) \right)$
where $Q_N(x)=B_Nx^N+\cdots+B_1x+B_0$ and $N=\max(n,m)$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](VI)[/TD]
[TD]$ae^{\alpha x}\cos(\beta x)+be^{\alpha x}\sin(\beta x)$[/TD]
[TD]$x^s\left(Ae^{\alpha x}\cos(\beta x)+Be^{\alpha x}\sin(\beta x) \right)$[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD](VII)[/TD]
[TD]$p_ne^{\alpha x}\cos(\beta x)+q_me^{\alpha x}\sin(\beta x)$[/TD]
[TD]$x^se^{\alpha x}\left(P_N(x)\cos(\beta x)+Q_N(x)\sin(\beta x) \right)$
where $N=\max(n,m)$[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

Notes:

The non-negative integer $s$ is chosen to be the smallest integer so that no term in the particular solution $y_p(x)$ is a solution to the corresponding homogeneous solution $L[y](x)=0$.

$P_n(x)$ must include all its terms even if $p_n(x)$ has some terms that are zero.

To show this, it suffices to work with type VII functions--that is, functions of the form:

(1) $$g(x)=p_n(x)e^{\alpha x}\cos(\beta x)+q_m(x)e^{\alpha x}\sin(\beta x)$$

where $p_n$ and $q_m$ are polynomials of degrees $n$ and $m$ respectively--since the other types listed in the table are just special cases of (1).

Consider the inhomogeneous equation:

(2) $$L[y](x)=g(x)$$

where $L$ is the linear operator:

(3) $$L\equiv a_nD^{n}+a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+\cdots+a_1D+a_0$$

with $a_n,\,a_{n-1},\,\cdots\,a_0$ constants, and $g(x)$ as given in equation (1). Let $N=\max(n,m)$.

Now, we need to find an annihilator for $g$. If we consider the function:

$$f(x)=e^{\alpha x}\sin(\beta x)$$

we find that:

$$f'(x)=e^{\alpha x}\left(\alpha\sin(\beta x)+\beta\cos(\beta x) \right)$$

$$f''(x)=e^{\alpha x}\left(\left(\alpha^2-\beta^2 \right)\sin(\beta x)+2\alpha\beta\cos(\beta x) \right)$$

If we observe that:

$$f''(x)-2\alpha f'(x)+\left(\alpha^2+\beta^2 \right)f(x)=0$$

then we may state that:

$$D^2-2\alpha D+\alpha^2+\beta^2=(D-\alpha)^2+\beta^2$$

annihilates $f(x)$, and so we conclude that:

$$A\equiv\left((D-\alpha)^2+\beta^2 \right)^{N+1}$$

annihilates $g$.

Now, we need to find the auxiliary equation associated with:

$$AL[y]=0$$

$$\left((D-\alpha)^2+\beta^2 \right)^{N+1}\left(a_nD^n+a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+\cdots+a_0 \right)=0$$

Suppose $0\le s$ is the multiplicity of the roots $\alpha\pm\beta i$ of the auxiliary equation associated with $L[y]=0$, and $r=2_{2s+1}\,\cdots\,r_n$ are the remaining roots, then we have:

(4) $$\left((r-\alpha)^2+\beta^2 \right)^{s+N+1}\left(r-r_{2s+1} \right)\,\cdots\,\left(r-r_n \right)=0$$

Now, as the solution to $$AL[y]=0$$ can be written in the form:

$$y(x)=y_h(x)+y_p(x)$$

and we must have:

$$y_h(x)=p_{s+1}(x)e^{\alpha x}\left(\cos(\beta x)+\sin(\beta x) \right)+\sum_{k=2s+1}^n e^{k}$$

then we may conclude that:

$$y_p(x)=x^se^{\alpha x}\left(P_N(x)\cos(\beta x)+Q_N\sin(\beta x) \right)$$

Questions and comments should be posted here:

http://mathhelpboards.com/commentary-threads-53/commentary-justifying-method-undetermined-coefficients-4840.html
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
This topic is for questions and comments pertaining to this tutorial:

http://mathhelpboards.com/math-notes-49/justifying-method-undetermined-coefficients-4839.html
 
Good stuff! Just a couple of minor edits I'd recommend:

1. In the table, in the $y_{p}(x)$ column for Type I's, an $x^{s}$ seems to have become an $x^{2}$.

2. I would rewrite Equation (3) as follows (you haven't really used operator notation, but have included the test function in your definition of $L$, which is not usual):
$$(3) \quad L[y] \equiv a_nD^{n}+ a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+ \cdots+ a_{1}D+ a_0.$$
You do this later on, so this is more of a consistency thing, I think.
 
Thank you! For some reason, I want to enter a 2 instead of an s. I appreciate you catching this!

Your suggestion of being consistent with operator notation is an excellent one.

I have made both edits. (Sun)
 
Hehe. Actually, I'm not sure I was consistent just then! You could either write
$$L \equiv a_{n}D^{n}+a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+ \dots + a_{1}D + a_{0},$$
or
$$L[y] = \left( a_{n}D^{n}+a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+ \dots + a_{1}D + a_{0} \right)y.$$
 
I prefer the first notation. This was a group project taken from my old ODE textbook, and the original notation came from there (notice how I am "passing the buck?"). (Rofl)

I truly appreciate your suggestions, and feel the post has been improved because of them. (Rock)
 

Similar threads

Replies
46
Views
6K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
966
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K