Proof on Linear 1st Order IVP solution being bounded

marvalos
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Proof on Linear 1st Order IVP solution being "bounded"

A function h(t) is called "bounded" for t≥t0 if there is a constant M>0 such that

|h(t)|≤M for all t≥0

The constant M is called a bound for h(t). Consider the IVP

x'=-x+q(t), x(0)=x0

where the nonhomogeneous term q(t) is bounded for t≥0. Show the solution of this IVP is bounded for t≥0. (Hint: Use the Variation of Constants Formula.)

Any help on where to go for this problem would be great. Thanks
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are given the "Hint: use the Variation of Constants Formula". Okay, what is that formula?
 
The Variation of Constants formula is a generalized formula for First Order Linear DE's that can be solved with the Integrating Factor Method.

I would put the exact formula down but I am not too familiar with this equation editor.
 
You have to show some effort. Show us what you have tried. I would give a second hint: It is a linear equation.
 
Here is what I have tried:

The Variation of Constants formula gave me this

x=(x0+∫e^u q(u) du) e^-t

the integral is definite and goes from 0 to t.

Since q(t) is bounded, would that remain true if the integral is taken from it?
 
marvalos said:
Here is what I have tried:

The Variation of Constants formula gave me this

x=(x0+∫e^u q(u) du) e^-t

the integral is definite and goes from 0 to t.

Since q(t) is bounded, would that remain true if the integral is taken from it?

To rephrase your question, if you take the absolute value of both sides of that equation, can you overestimate the right hand side by some constant. So try it and show us what happens.
 
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