Please check Laguerre's eqtn solution

  • Context: MHB 
  • Thread starter Thread starter ognik
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the solution to Laguerre's equation, specifically focusing on the identification of the weighting factor in the context of Sturm-Liouville theory. Participants explore the concept of integrating factors and their implications for self-adjointness.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation, Conceptual clarification, Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents Laguerre's equation and seeks confirmation on the weighting factor, proposing that $w(x) = e^{-x}$ is correct.
  • Another participant questions the integrating factor proposed by the first participant, suggesting a potential error in simplification after integration.
  • A participant clarifies that multiple integrating factors may exist for a function and seeks confirmation on the application of Sturm-Liouville theory using a simpler integrating factor.
  • There is a discussion about the correctness of the simplification of the integrating factor and its relation to self-adjointness.
  • One participant expresses uncertainty about whether there is only one integrating factor that can make a function self-adjoint.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express uncertainty regarding the integrating factors and their implications for self-adjointness. There is no consensus on the correctness of the proposed integrating factors or the application of Sturm-Liouville theory.

Contextual Notes

There are unresolved questions regarding the correctness of the integration steps and the implications of using different integrating factors. The discussion also highlights the potential for multiple integrating factors for a given function.

ognik
Messages
626
Reaction score
2
Hi - revising Sturm-Liouville theory and would appreciate someone checking & correcting/improving the following.

Given Laguerre's eqtn $xy''+(1-x)y'+\lambda y = 0 $, which is not self-adjoint, find the weighting factor w(x).

If I didn't know the integrating factor, would one be $ \mu(x) = \frac{1}{x} e^{\int\frac{1-x}{x}dx} = \frac{1}{x}\left( x-e^{x} \right)$? As it is I know $\mu(x) = e^{-x}$ works well.

Then $ e^{-x} xy''+ e^{-x} (1-x)y'+ e^{-x} \lambda y = 0 $ and I verify this is self-adjoint by showing $p'_0$ = $p_1$

Then by comparison with the Sturm-Liouville problem $ \mathcal{L}y + \lambda W(x)y = 0 $, I can write:
$q(x) = 0$
$\lambda$ is the eigenvalue and y(x) is the corresponding eigenfunction
and $w(x) = e^{-x}$

Anything I am missing?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Hi - the reason I ask questions like this is that over this year some things I thought were right have been - to some degree - wrong or incomplete or just using incorrect notation. So if I have this correct I would really appreciate a short confirmation; but am also interested in my 1st question about the Integration Factor - it would seem there can be more than 1 I/F ?
Thanks.
 
ognik said:
. . . $ \mu(x) = \frac{1}{x} e^{\int\frac{1-x}{x}dx} = \frac{1}{x}\left( x-e^{x} \right)$?
You might want to check what you did after you integrated.
 
Sorry, this was ambiguous. After I integrated I didn't use the IF that I had found, because I had used an IF of $e^{-x}$ in a different Laguerre's eqtn problem and it looked easier to work with than the IF I found by integrating.

I just want to confirm that there can be multiple different IFs for a function - i.e. integrating is just one method to find 1 possibility?

Secondly, using the easier IF of $e^{-x}$, I just wanted to check that I had applied the S-L theory correctly (book doesn't give the answer)

Thanks
 
What I'm saying is that after your integration, your simplifaction is incorrect.

$$\dfrac{e^{\int\frac{1-x}{x}dx}}{x} = \dfrac{e^{ln x - x}}{x} = \dfrac{x e^{-x}}{x} = e^{-x}$$

(I've also be a little relaxed with absolutes).
 
Oops misunderstood, you're of course right. So is there then only 1 IF that will make a function self-adjoint?

And please check that the rest of what I did is correct?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
4K