Proving fundamental set of solutions DE

  • Thread starter Thread starter Panphobia
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Fundamental Set
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on proving that two solutions, y1 and y2, of the differential equation y'' + p(t)y' + q(t)y = 0 cannot form a fundamental set unless both p(t0) and q(t0) equal zero at a common inflection point t0. The participants analyze three cases where either p(t0) or q(t0) is non-zero and conclude that the Wronskian must be zero in these scenarios. The key insight is that the presence of a common inflection point implies that the second derivative is zero, which directly impacts the fundamental nature of the solutions.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of second-order linear differential equations
  • Familiarity with Wronskian and its significance in determining linear independence
  • Knowledge of points of inflection and their implications on function behavior
  • Basic concepts of continuity in functions p(t) and q(t)
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of the Wronskian and its derivative in the context of differential equations
  • Explore the implications of common inflection points on the solutions of differential equations
  • Review the conditions for linear independence of solutions to second-order linear differential equations
  • Investigate examples of fundamental sets of solutions for various forms of p(t) and q(t)
USEFUL FOR

Mathematics students, particularly those studying differential equations, educators teaching advanced calculus, and researchers exploring the properties of linear systems.

Panphobia
Messages
435
Reaction score
13

Homework Statement


Assume that y1 and y2 are solutions of y'' + p(t)y' + q(t)y = 0 on an open interval I on which p,q are continuous. Assume also that y1 and y2 have a common point of inflection t0 in I. Prove that y1,y2 cannot be a fundamental set of solutions unless p(t0) = q(t0) = 0.

The Attempt at a Solution



I figured that if p(t0) is not 0 or q(t0) is not 0 then its not a fundamental set of solutions. So I have to show for the three cases
i) p(t0) =/= 0 q(t0) = 0
ii) p(t0) = 0 q(t0) =/= 0
ii) p(t0) =/= 0 q(t0) =/= 0
That the Wronskian is 0, but I don't know what to do to relate p to q in the wronskian.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Panphobia said:

Homework Statement


Assume that y1 and y2 are solutions of y'' + p(t)y' + q(t)y = 0 on an open interval I on which p,q are continuous. Assume also that y1 and y2 have a common point of inflection t0 in I. Prove that y1,y2 cannot be a fundamental set of solutions unless p(t0) = q(t0) = 0.

The Attempt at a Solution



I figured that if p(t0) is not 0 or q(t0) is not 0 then its not a fundamental set of solutions.

How did you "figure" that? The equation ##y''- y=0## has fundamental solution pair ##\{e^x,e^{-x}\}## and ##q(x)=-1##.

So I have to show for the three cases
i) p(t0) =/= 0 q(t0) = 0
ii) p(t0) = 0 q(t0) =/= 0
ii) p(t0) =/= 0 q(t0) =/= 0
That the Wronskian is 0, but I don't know what to do to relate p to q in the wronskian.

That is nonsense. ##p## and ##q## are coefficients, not a solution pair and they have nothing directly to do with the Wronskian. And your argument doesn't even try to use the fact that your solutions have a common inflection point.

Hint: Think about the properties of the Wronskian and its derivative.
 
Those are the hints that my professor gave to me, so that is how I figured that. Why is it significant that y1 and y2 have an inflection point at t0? That just means the second derivative is 0. It is asking me to prove that if is is not the case that p(t0) = q(t0) = 0 then they are NOT a funcdamental set of solutions, and there are three ways that p(t0), q(t0) cannot be zero.
 
I think you have misquoted or misunderstood the statement of the problem. What is true about your equation is that as long as ##p(x)## is not identically zero, then if two solutions have a common inflection point at ##t_0##, they cannot be a fundamental set, period. It doesn't matter about the zeroes of ##p## and ##q##. What I have just stated can be proved using my previous hint.
 

Similar threads

Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
5K
Replies
7
Views
2K