ODE/PDE- eighenvalues+ eigenfunctions

  • Thread starter Thread starter Roni1985
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Eigenfunctions
Roni1985
Messages
200
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


it's already separable, so it's an ODE function.
X''+\lambda*X=0 0<x<1
X(0)=-2X(1)+X'(1)=0


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



this is a Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue problem.
Now, I know how to solve it and everything, but I'm not sure with one thing.

when I check the case where \lambda=0,
I get C2(-2x+1)=0
so C2 can be anything, correct ?
now what's my eigenfunction ?
X(x)=x is the eigenfunction ?

do I use the x=1/2 somewhere ?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Roni1985 said:

Homework Statement


it's already separable, so it's an ODE function.
X''+\lambda*X=0 0<x<1
X(0)=-2X(1)+X'(1)=0


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution



this is a Sturm-Liouville eigenvalue problem.
Now, I know how to solve it and everything, but I'm not sure with one thing.

when I check the case where \lambda=0,
I get C2(-2x+1)=0
How did you get that?
so C2 can be anything, correct ?
now what's my eigenfunction ?
X(x)=x is the eigenfunction ?

do I use the x=1/2 somewhere ?

Thanks.
 
vela said:
How did you get that?

well, when lamda is zero X''=0
so, X(x)=C1+C2*x
X(0)=C1=0
and by using the second BC, -2*C2*x+C2=0
so to get a nontrivial solution x=1/2, meaning C2 can be any number.

did I do something wrong ?
 
The second BC is at x=1, so you get C2=0. So there's no non-trivial solution that satisfies the boundary conditions when λ=0.
 
vela said:
The second BC is at x=1, so you get C2=0. So there's no non-trivial solution that satisfies the boundary conditions when λ=0.

shoot, you are right :\

forgot to plug in the 1.

Thanks for your help.
 
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