ODE Proof (2nd order linear homogeneous equations)

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a second-order linear homogeneous differential equation involving two linearly independent solutions, u and v. The specific problem asserts that if u has consecutive zeros at points x0 and x1, then v must also have a zero in the interval (x0, x1).

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Mathematical reasoning

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • Participants are examining the use of the Wronskian to derive a contradiction regarding the behavior of the solutions u and v in the interval defined by their zeros. There is a focus on the continuity of the Wronskian and the implications of the signs of u and v at the zeros.

Discussion Status

Some participants have proposed a direct proof involving the Wronskian and are exploring the implications of the signs of the functions at the zeros. There is an acknowledgment of the need for v to have a zero in the interval based on the behavior of u.

Contextual Notes

There is a discussion about the formulation of the differential equation and whether both solutions should be included in the equation itself. Participants are also considering the implications of continuity and the nature of the solutions in the context of the problem.

Daxin
Messages
2
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Suppose u, v are two linearly independent solutions to the differential equation u''+p(x)u'+q(x)v=0. If x0,x1 are consecutive zeros of u, then v has a zero on the open interval (x0,x1)


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I'm trying to use the Wronskian(u,v;x) to arrive at a contradiction.

I know that the W = uv'-u'v is never 0 since u,v are linearly independent. Furthermore, since it is a combination of C2 functions it must also be continuous on [x0,x1] = I. Also if I suppose that v is never zero on I, then it must be always positive or always negative. Same with u, since we know x0,x1 are consecutive zeros. From this I want to show that the Wronskian is positive at some point in I, and negative at another point, which would lead to a contradiction. Is this the right idea?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Daxin said:

Homework Statement


Suppose u, v are two linearly independent solutions to the differential equation u''+p(x)u'+q(x)v=0. If x0,x1 are consecutive zeros of u, then v has a zero on the open interval (x0,x1)
Surely you don't mean to have both u and v in the equation itself? Since u and v are to be specific solutions, it would be better to say
"Suppose u, v are two linearly independent solutions to the differential equation y''+p(x)y'+q(x)y=0.


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


I'm trying to use the Wronskian(u,v;x) to arrive at a contradiction.

I know that the W = uv'-u'v is never 0 since u,v are linearly independent. Furthermore, since it is a combination of C2 functions it must also be continuous on [x0,x1] = I. Also if I suppose that v is never zero on I, then it must be always positive or always negative. Same with u, since we know x0,x1 are consecutive zeros. From this I want to show that the Wronskian is positive at some point in I, and negative at another point, which would lead to a contradiction. Is this the right idea?
Sounds like a good plan. How are you going to implement it?

 
Daxin said:
I'm trying to use the Wronskian(u,v;x) to arrive at a contradiction.

I know that the W = uv'-u'v is never 0 since u,v are linearly independent. Furthermore, since it is a combination of C2 functions it must also be continuous on [x0,x1] = I. Also if I suppose that v is never zero on I, then it must be always positive or always negative. Same with u, since we know x0,x1 are consecutive zeros. From this I want to show that the Wronskian is positive at some point in I, and negative at another point, which would lead to a contradiction. Is this the right idea?

I think there is a direct proof: You have
[tex]W(x_0) = u(x_0)v'(x_0) - u'(x_0)v(x_0) = -u'(x_0)v(x_0)[/tex]
and similarly
[tex]W(x_1) = -u'(x_1)v(x_1)[/tex]
and, since [itex]W(x)[/itex] vanishes nowhere, [itex]W(x_0)[/itex] and [itex]W(x_1)[/itex] must have the same sign. Thus
[tex]W(x_0)W(x_1) = u'(x_0)v(x_0)u'(x_1)v(x_1) > 0.[/tex]

Now use the fact that [itex]x_0[/itex] and [itex]x_1[/itex] are consecutive zeroes of [itex]u[/itex] to show that [itex]u'(x_0)u'(x_1) < 0[/itex].

What does that require of [itex]v(x_0)v(x_1)[/itex] if the condition on [itex]W(x_0)W(x_1)[/itex] is to hold?
 
Yeah thanks guys, I think I get it now.

v(x0)v(x1) would have to be negative. And since v is cts it must have an 0 between x0 and x1.
 

Similar threads

Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 26 ·
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 24 ·
Replies
24
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K