Proving a real valued function does not exist

  • Thread starter Thread starter _N3WTON_
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Function
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The problem involves proving that no real-valued function 'u' exists under the condition that \(\lambda > \frac{1}{2}\). The equation in question relates 'u' to an integral involving itself, defined over the closed interval from 0 to 1.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to derive properties of the function 'u' by assuming its existence and manipulating the integral equation. They express confusion about the next steps in their reasoning.
  • Another participant builds on the original poster's work, introducing a new variable and reformulating the problem into a quadratic equation, leading to a contradiction based on the discriminant condition.
  • Some participants question the validity of the assumptions made during the manipulation of the integral and the implications of the derived quadratic equation.

Discussion Status

The discussion has progressed with one participant suggesting a potential solution based on their calculations, while another participant expresses agreement with the reasoning presented. However, there is no explicit consensus on the correctness of the approach, as the original poster still seeks clarification.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working under the constraint that \(\lambda\) must be greater than \(\frac{1}{2}\), which is central to the problem's requirements. The implications of this constraint are being explored through the mathematical reasoning presented.

_N3WTON_
Messages
350
Reaction score
3

Homework Statement


Show that if [itex]\lambda > \frac{1}{2}[/itex] there does not exist a real-valued function 'u' such that for all x in the closed interval [itex]0 <= x <= 1[/itex], [itex]u(x) = 1 + \lambda\int_{x}^{1} u(y)u(y-x)\,dy[/itex]

Homework Equations

The Attempt at a Solution


I started off by assuming that such a function does in fact exist, so:
[itex]u(x) = 1 + \lambda\int_{x}^{1}u(y)u(y-x)\,dy[/itex]
[itex]\lambda > \frac{1}{2}[/itex]
[itex]0 <= x <= 1[/itex]
[itex]\mu = \int_{0}^{1} u(x)\,dx[/itex]
[itex]= \int_{0}^{1}\,dx + \int_{0}^{1}\int_{x}^{1} u(y)u(y-x) dy \hspace{1 mm} dx[/itex]
Here, I changed the order of integration:
[itex]= 1 + \lambda\int_{0}^{1}\int_{0}^{y} u(y)u(y-x)dx \hspace{1 mm} dy[/itex]
[itex]= 1 + \lambda\int_{0}^{1}u(y)\int_{0}^{y}u(y-x)dx \hspace{1 mm} dy[/itex]
At this point I am a bit confused about where to go, so I am starting to think that perhaps I am not going in the right direction; I was hoping someone could give me some advice. Thanks :)
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Ok, I worked on this for a quite a while last night before bed and I think I have a solution, hopefully someone can confirm/deny...I'll start where I left off above, where I take Y constant:
[itex]z = y - x[/itex]
[itex]dz = -dx[/itex]
[itex]\mu = 1 + \lambda\int_{0}^{1}u(y)\int_{y}^{0} u(z)(-dz)\,dy[/itex]
[itex]= 1 + \lambda\int_{0}^{1}u(y)\int_{0}^{y}u(z)dz\,dy[/itex]
[itex]{Let} \hspace{1 mm} f(y) = \int_{0}^{y} u(z)\,dz \hspace{2 mm} {then,} \hspace{2 mm} f'(y) = u(y), \hspace{1 mm} f(0)=0, \hspace{1 mm} f(1) = \mu[/itex]
[itex]\mu = 1 + \lambda\int_{0}^{1}f'(y)f(y)\,dy[/itex]
[itex]= 1 + \frac{\lambda {\mu}^2}{2}[/itex]
[itex]\lambda {\mu}^2 - 2\mu + 2 = 0[/itex]
So now, if mu is going to exist, the discriminant of that quadratic cannot be negative:
[itex]4 - 8\lambda >= 0[/itex]
[itex]\lambda <= \frac{1}{2}[/itex]
-This contradicts the problem statement that [itex]\lambda > \frac{1}{2}[/itex]. Hence, it is confirmed that for [itex]\lambda > \frac{1}{2}[/itex] there does not exist [itex]u = 1 + \lambda\int_{x}^{1}u(y)u(y-x)\,dy[/itex].
 
Looks correct.
 
thanks :)
 

Similar threads

Replies
4
Views
3K
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
3K
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 10 ·
Replies
10
Views
2K