ODE Proof (2nd order linear homogeneous equations)

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
3 replies · 2K views
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?
 
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.