trojansc82
- 57
- 0
Homework Statement
y' = -y , y(0) = 1
Homework Equations
Picard's method
The Attempt at a Solution
I found y1 as 1 + 1/2x2, however y1 is really 1 + x
Last edited:
The discussion revolves around solving the differential equation y' = -y with the initial condition y(0) = 1 using Picard's method. Participants are attempting to find the correct first approximation of the solution.
The discussion is ongoing, with participants seeking to clarify misunderstandings and verify calculations. Some have pointed out potential errors in the original poster's approach, while others are requesting more detailed explanations of the steps taken in the calculations.
There appears to be confusion regarding the notation and the correct interpretation of the differential equation. Participants are also addressing typographical errors in the original post regarding the proposed solutions.
trojansc82 said:Homework Statement
y' = -y , y(0) = 1
Homework Equations
Picard's method
The Attempt at a Solution
I found y1 as 1 + 1/2x2, however y1 is really 1 + x
HallsofIvy said:I think LCKurtz and lanedance are misunderstanding your notation. Neither [itex]y= 1+ x^2/2[/itex] nor [itex]y= 1+ x[/itex] is a solution to the equation but you are not claiming it is.
Picard's method of solving the differential equation y' = f(x,y), with initial condition [itex]y(0)= y_0[/itex] is an iterative method. Taking [itex]y_0[/itex] to be the initial value, [itex]y_1= \int f(x, y_0)dx[/itex] is the first iteration, then [itex]y_2= \int f(x, y_1(x))dx[/itex], [itex]y_3= \int f(x,y_2(x))dx[/itex], etc.
For the problem as given, the first iteration of Picard's method is, indeed, [itex]y_1(x)= x+ 1[/itex].
HallsofIvy said:Oh, I completely misread the equation! It is y'= -y, not y'= y as I was seeing!
My apologies to both LCKurtz and lanedance.
trojansc82, I still don't see how you got "1+ x^2/2". Please show us what you did.
trojansc82 said:Again, I apologize, I mistyped the answer.
The answer for y1 = 1 - x
LCKurtz said:Is that the answer you got? In your original post you said you got something else. Have you figured it out? You never did show us what you did...
trojansc82 said:Within the integral I multiplied -1 (since y was -y) by t. I ended up integrating -t, which came to -1/2 x2.
I have trouble within the integral.