Linear second order non-homogeneous ODE question

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving the linear second-order non-homogeneous ordinary differential equation (ODE) given by y'' + 2y' = 1 + xe^(-2x). The general solution is expressed as y = yh + yp, where the homogeneous solution is y = c1 + c2e^(-2x). The method of undetermined coefficients is discussed for finding the particular solution, with the suggestion that the form should include an additional e^(-2x) term. The method of variation of parameters is also recommended as an alternative approach to solve the ODE.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of linear second-order ordinary differential equations
  • Familiarity with the method of undetermined coefficients
  • Knowledge of the method of variation of parameters
  • Basic calculus, particularly integration techniques
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the method of undetermined coefficients in detail for non-homogeneous ODEs
  • Learn about the method of variation of parameters for solving differential equations
  • Practice solving linear second-order ODEs with varying coefficients
  • Explore the Wronskian and its application in differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Students and professionals in mathematics, engineering, and physics who are working with differential equations, particularly those seeking to solve linear second-order non-homogeneous ODEs.

Malby
Messages
15
Reaction score
0
Determine the general solution to the ODE:

y'' + 2y' = 1 + xe-2x

I know the solution will be of the form y = yh + yp. The homogeneous solution is y = c1 + c2e-2x.

For the particular solution, I have been using the method of undetermined coefficients. c3e-2x won't work as it is not linearly independent of the homogeneous solution. So I guess c3xe-2x.

So y' = c3e-2x(c3 - 2c3x)

And y'' = 4c3e-2x(x - 1)

Following on from this I end up with a particular solution:

yp = ((1 + xe-2x)/(-2e-2x))xe-2x

However wolfram disagrees with me. My question is, is the method of undetermined coefficients ok to use for this ODE? Or should I be using the method with the Wronskian (it's name escapes me at the moment)

Cheers
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If you put y(x) = C1(x) + C2(x)*exp(-2x) in the DE, you eventually arrive at a first-order DE in v = dC1/dx + exp(-2x)*dC2/dx.

RGV
 
Ray Vickson said:
If you put y(x) = C1(x) + C2(x)*exp(-2x) in the DE, you eventually arrive at a first-order DE in v = dC1/dx + exp(-2x)*dC2/dx.

RGV

I'm not sure I understand this. Are you able to explain it a little more?

Cheers
 
I'd have to dig out my book or notes to make sure, but I think your particular solution will also need an e-2x term, so it should be of the form Ae-2x + Bxe-2x. I wouldn't use c's for yh since they're already being used as the constants of integration for yh.
 
For the method of variation of the parameters, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variation_of_parameters.

This problem can be solved for y' as the y term is missing. Denote z=y' and solve the first-order equation z'+2z=1+xe-2x, then integrate z=y' to get y.

ehild
 
ehild said:
For the method of variation of the parameters, read http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variation_of_parameters.

This problem can be solved for y' as the y term is missing. Denote z=y' and solve the first-order equation z'+2z=1+xe-2x, then integrate z=y' to get y.

ehild

Aha! Of course. It's all so simple once you know what to do... :smile:

Thanks very much!
 
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

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