MHB Legendre Polynomial and Legendre Equation

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around proving that the Legendre polynomial \( P_l(x) \) satisfies Legendre's equation using the ordinary differential equation (ODE) it satisfies. The ODE given is \( (x^2-1)f'(x) - 2lx f(x) = 0 \) for \( f(x) = (x^2-1)^l \). To prove this, the suggestion is to apply the Leibniz General Product Rule for differentiation to the ODE, specifically performing \((l+1)\)-fold differentiation. This approach allows the transformation of the original ODE into a form that can be shown to equal zero, leading to the conclusion that \( P_l(x) \) satisfies Legendre's equation. The discussion emphasizes the importance of differentiation techniques in this proof.
Fantini
Gold Member
MHB
Messages
267
Reaction score
0
Given $f(x) = (x^2-1)^l$ we know it satisfies the ordinary differential equation $$(x^2-1)f'(x) -2lx f(x) = 0.$$ The book defines the Legendre polynomial $P_l(x)$ on $\mathbb{R}$ by Rodrigues's formula $$P_l(x) = \frac{1}{2^l l!} \left( \frac{d}{dx} \right)^l (x^2-1)^l.$$ I'm asked to prove by $(l+1)$-fold differentiation of the first ODE that $P_l(x)$ satisfies Legendre's equation: $$(1-x^2) u''(x) -2x u'(x) +l(l+1) u(x)=0,$$ for a twice differentiable function $u: \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}$.

Honestly I'm out of ideas. I have differentiated the ODE and obtained another relation, but I didn't see a way to use it. I don't know how to translate $(l+1)$-fold differentiation into something usable, nor know how to actually perform the $(l+1)$-fold differentiation if one were to brute-force it. Please guide me in the right direction. :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hey Fantini,

This type of nail is best struck with the Leibniz General Product Rule Formula hammer:

Differentiation rules - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You'll want to use this formula to compute

$$\left(\frac{d}{dx} \right)^{l+1}\left[(x^{2}-1)f'(x)-2lxf(x) \right],$$

which we know is zero from the ODE. I can supply the details of this computation if you get stuck along they way, but I think you'll see how to proceed on your own. Let me know if anything is unclear/not quite right.
 
We all know the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold uses open sets and homeomorphisms onto the image as open set in ##\mathbb R^n##. It should be possible to reformulate the definition of n-dimensional topological manifold using closed sets on the manifold's topology and on ##\mathbb R^n## ? I'm positive for this. Perhaps the definition of smooth manifold would be problematic, though.

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 30 ·
2
Replies
30
Views
1K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
854