Lipschitz Condition, Uniqueness and Existence of ODE

BrainHurts
Messages
100
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement



Find a solution of the IVP

\frac{dy}{dt} = t(1-y2)\frac{1}{2} and y(0)=0 (*)

other than y(t) = 1. Does this violate the uniqueness part of the Existence/Uniqueness Theorem. Explain.

Homework Equations



Initial Value Problem \frac{dy}{dt}=f(t,y) y(t0)=y0 has a solution if f is continuous on B = [t0,t0 + a] x [y0-b,y0+b]


The Attempt at a Solution



So when I solved * by separation of variables, my solution

y(t)= sin(t2+\frac{πk}{2}) where k = ±1,±2,...

f(t,y) = t(1-y2)\frac{1}{2}
So \frac{∂f}{∂y} = ty(1-y2)\frac{-1}{2}

I want to say that that as long as |y|≤ 1, f(t,y) is continuous and because the set B is closed, there exists a Maximum value M = max(t,y)\inB|\frac{∂f}{∂y}|, this is the Lipschitz condition and f satisfies this condition.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
No, that's not true. The partial derivative is what you say (you mean that last "-1/2" to be an exponent) but that goes to infinity at y= 1 so there is no such maximum value.

f is continuous, and so has a maximum on a closed and bounded set, but \partial f/\partial y is not.
 
yes sorry that should be raised to the -1/2. I just saw that. So because ∂f/∂y goes to infinity at y=±1, does this mean that the Lipschitz condition failed and that means and that the existence and uniqueness theorem is violated?
 
Last edited:
Yes, the Lipschitz condition fails so the existence and uniqueness theorem does NOT APPLY. (I would not say it is "violated". That would imply a situation where the hypotheses are true and the conclusion is false- a counterexample.)
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top