Linearly Dependent? Clarifying Wronskian Results

  • Thread starter Thread starter kdinser
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Linearly
AI Thread Summary
The discussion clarifies the concept of linear dependence in relation to the Wronskian of a set of functions. A Wronskian of 12x^2 + 12x indicates linear dependence if the interval includes x=0, while it is independent if x never equals 0. Conversely, a Wronskian of 6 + 12x suggests linear independence for all x, including x=-1/2. The key point is that linear dependence is defined on an open interval and requires the Wronskian to be zero everywhere on that interval. Thus, having a Wronskian equal to zero at a single point does not imply linear dependence if there are other points in the interval where the Wronskian is non-zero.
kdinser
Messages
335
Reaction score
2
I just want to make sure I'm clear on the whole linearly dependent thing.

If I find the Wronskian of a set of functions and it comes out:

12x^2 + 12x

This would indicate that my set of functions is linearly dependent if the interval included x=0 and would be linearly independent if x never equaled 0.

if I find the wronskian of a set of functions and it comes out:

6 + 12x

This would show that my set of functions is linearly independent for all x.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Would it? what if x= -1/2?

Of course, on can show that if the functions involved all satisfy the same linear, homogeneous differential equation, THEN their Wronskian is either always 0 or never 0.
 
Thanks for pointing that out. That's exactly the kind of thing my professor would put on a test.
 
kdinser said:
I just want to make sure I'm clear on the whole linearly dependent thing.

If I find the Wronskian of a set of functions and it comes out:

12x^2 + 12x

This would indicate that my set of functions is linearly dependent if the interval included x=0 and would be linearly independent if x never equaled 0.

if I find the wronskian of a set of functions and it comes out:

6 + 12x

This would show that my set of functions is linearly independent for all x.

There is an important distinction to be made here regarding the definition of Linear Dependence. Normally, Linear Dependence for an arbitrary differentiable set of Functions is defined on an OPEN INTERVAL "I" and requires the Wronskian to be zero (0) everywhere on "I". Being (0) at 1 point in "I" (or a finite number of points in "I") does not usually indicate Linear Dependence if there exists at least 1 other point in "I" for which the Wronskian is NON-zero.

Most definitions of Linear Dependence would hold that the 2 above Wronskians indicate Linear INdependence on all OPEN INTERVALS, regardless if the interval contained x=(0) in the first case or x=(-1/2) in the second. Again, this results because all such Open Intervals contain at least 1 point for which the Wronskian is NON-zero.


~~
 
Last edited:
I multiplied the values first without the error limit. Got 19.38. rounded it off to 2 significant figures since the given data has 2 significant figures. So = 19. For error I used the above formula. It comes out about 1.48. Now my question is. Should I write the answer as 19±1.5 (rounding 1.48 to 2 significant figures) OR should I write it as 19±1. So in short, should the error have same number of significant figures as the mean value or should it have the same number of decimal places as...
Thread 'Collision of a bullet on a rod-string system: query'
In this question, I have a question. I am NOT trying to solve it, but it is just a conceptual question. Consider the point on the rod, which connects the string and the rod. My question: just before and after the collision, is ANGULAR momentum CONSERVED about this point? Lets call the point which connects the string and rod as P. Why am I asking this? : it is clear from the scenario that the point of concern, which connects the string and the rod, moves in a circular path due to the string...
Thread 'A cylinder connected to a hanging mass'
Let's declare that for the cylinder, mass = M = 10 kg Radius = R = 4 m For the wall and the floor, Friction coeff = ##\mu## = 0.5 For the hanging mass, mass = m = 11 kg First, we divide the force according to their respective plane (x and y thing, correct me if I'm wrong) and according to which, cylinder or the hanging mass, they're working on. Force on the hanging mass $$mg - T = ma$$ Force(Cylinder) on y $$N_f + f_w - Mg = 0$$ Force(Cylinder) on x $$T + f_f - N_w = Ma$$ There's also...
Back
Top