# Prove that y'' + y = f(x)

0kelvin
Homework Statement:
Let f be a continuous function in a interval I containing the origin and let

##y = y(x) = \int_0^x sin(x - t)f(t) dt##

Prove that ##y'' + y = f(x)## and ##y(0) = y'(0) = 0## for all x ##\in I##
Relevant Equations:
...
I know how to solve ##\frac{d}{dx} \int_0^{x^2} sin(t^2) dt## and from the statement I got that f(0) = 0 because f contains the origin and is continuous.

I tried y'(x) = sin(x - x)f(x) - sin(x - 0)f(0) but that doesn't seem to look good.

Homework Helper
Gold Member
You are not applying Leibniz's integral rule correctly.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz_integral_ruleAlso I don't understand how you got that f(0)=0 because f is continuous and contains the origin..

Just apply correctly Leibniz's integral rule to calculate y'(x) and y''(x)..

Mentor
2021 Award
We have a function ##g(x,t)=\sin(x-t)f(t)## as integrand, so that ##y(x)=\int_0^x g(x,t)\,dt##.
I would like to differentiate by ##\dfrac{d}{dx}g(x)= \displaystyle{ \int_0^x } \dfrac{\partial }{\partial x}g(x,t)\,dt## but I'm not 100% sure whether this is ok if the variable is still in the boundary.

Have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution#Differentiation

Staff Emeritus
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2021 Award
I'm not 100% sure whether this is ok if the variable is still in the boundary.
It is not. The easy counter example is letting g(x,t) be a non-zero constant.

Homework Helper
Gold Member
We have a function ##g(x,t)=\sin(x-t)f(t)## as integrand, so that ##y(x)=\int_0^x g(x,t)\,dt##.
I would like to differentiate by ##\dfrac{d}{dx}g(x)= \displaystyle{ \int_0^x } \dfrac{\partial }{\partial x}g(x,t)\,dt## but I'm not 100% sure whether this is ok if the variable is still in the boundary.

Have a look: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Convolution#Differentiation
I am not so sure that the differentiation result for convolution can be applied when the boundaries of the convolution are functions of x.

Staff Emeritus
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2021 Award
I am not so sure that the differentiation result for convolution can be applied when the boundaries of the convolution are functions of x.
It cannot.

Delta2
Mentor
2021 Award
Here is an idea, derived from the principle: eliminate what disturbs!
I'm not sure whether my first step is necessary, but it is what I did. We have
\begin{align*}
y(x)&=\int_0^x \sin(x-t)f(t)\,dt\\
&=-\int_0^x \sin(t-x)f(t)\,dt\\
&\stackrel{(sx=t-x)}{=} -\int_{-1}^0 \sin(sx)\left( xf(sx+x) \right)\,ds \\
&\stackrel{(g(sx)=xf(sx+x))}{=} -\int_{-1}^0 \sin(sx) g(sx) \, ds
\end{align*}
where now ##x## is just a constant and the integral basically the same as before, with constant boundary and a modified function ##g(tx):=xf(tx+x)## which is still defined on now ##[-1,0]## and continuous.

Staff Emeritus
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2021 Award
You can of course do something like that, but why would you? It is a simple matter of correctly applying what was linked to already in #2.

Homework Helper
Gold Member
Yes well Leibniz rule correctly applied gives the answer in three lines, but it is interesting what @fresh_42 does because it removes the dependence of the boundary on x.

Mentor
2021 Award
I start to like the question, because how to deal with parameter integrals as well as this useful principle to attack what disturbs can be learnt. I assume that the proof of the Leibniz rule does exactly this. But one has to be cautious with Leibniz as ##f(t) ## is not necessarily differentiable.

Staff Emeritus
Homework Helper
Gold Member
2021 Award
While that would be workable, I think it is more common to just apply the definition of the derivative.

Homework Helper
Gold Member
I start to like the question, because how to deal with parameter integrals as well as this useful principle to attack what disturbs can be learnt. I assume that the proof of the Leibniz rule does exactly this. But one has to be cautious with Leibniz as ##f(t) ## is not necessarily differentiable.
I don't think we need differentiation with respect to t, the statement of the theorem speaks about continuity with respect to x and t , and differentiation with respect to x.

Mentor
2021 Award
I haven't checked, that's why I said cautious. Anyway, there is something to learn from the exercise.

0kelvin
I just realized that I was confusing differentiation with integration.

$$\int_0^x sin(t) dt = -cos(x) + 1$$

but

$$\frac{d}{dx} \int_0^x sin(t) dt = sin(x)$$

not ##F'(x) - F'(0) = sin(x) - sin(0)##

0kelvin
Following wikipedia's article I was able to prove it. I just realized something else, in addition. The statement is that the interval contains the origin, not that the function itself contains the point (0,0).