Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Proving that one solution always lies above the other

  1. Oct 2, 2013 #1
    Hi all,

    I'd be very happy if you could help me solve a problem in my research.

    I need to prove the following:
    [itex] H'(r) = -y(r) - k H(r) [/itex]

    k is a constant.

    y is strictly increasing, but not continuous.

    Let [itex] (a,b]\subset R [/itex].

    [itex] (H_x, y_x) [/itex] denotes solution x.

    [itex] H_1(a)<H_0(a)<0 [/itex].

    [itex] H_0(s)<0, H_1(s)<0 [/itex] for all [itex]s\in(a,b] [/itex].

    [itex] y_1(s)>y_0(s) [/itex] for all [itex]s \in (a,b] [/itex].

    Show:

    [itex] H_1(r)<H_0(r) [/itex] for all [itex] r \in (a,b] [/itex].
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Oct 2, 2013 #2

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Starting from
    [tex]
    H_0' + kH_0 = - y_0 \\
    H_1' + kH_1 = -y_1
    [/tex]
    if we subtract the second from the first we obtain
    [tex]
    (H_0 - H_1)' + k(H_0 - H_1) = y_1 - y_0
    [/tex]
    and if we multiply by [itex]e^{kr}[/itex] we find that
    [tex]
    \frac{d}{dr} \left(e^{kr} (H_0 - H_1) \right) = e^{kr}(y_1 - y_0)
    [/tex]
    Now the right hand side is strictly positive for all [itex]r \in (a,b][/itex], and so [itex]e^{kr}(H_0 - H_1)[/itex] is strictly increasing on [itex](a,b][/itex]. Since it is initially strictly positive ([itex]H_0(a) > H_1(a)[/itex]), it therefore remains strictly positive. It follows that [itex]H_0(r) > H_1(r)[/itex] for all [itex]r \in (a,b][/itex] as required.
     
  4. Oct 2, 2013 #3
    Thanks a lot! That was a very elegant explanation :)

    Now, can I prove the same for:

    [itex]H'(r)=-y(r)-H(r) k(-H(r))[/itex] ,
    where k is a strictly increasing positive function?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2013
  5. Oct 2, 2013 #4

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    Yes, assuming that continuous solutions of the now non-linear ODEs exist on [itex][a,b][/itex].

    Starting from the same point as before, we obtain
    [tex]
    (H_0 - H_1)' + k(-H_0)H_0 - k(-H_1)H_1 = y_1 - y_0
    [/tex]
    Now [itex]k(-H_0)H_0 - k(-H_1)H_1[/itex] is not obviously [itex]\frac{f'(r)}{f(r)}(H_0 - H_1)[/itex] for some strictly positive [itex]f(r)[/itex], so we can't use the previous method. However, we can use a different idea.

    Suppose there exists [itex]r_0 \in (a,b][/itex] such that [itex]H_0(r_0) = H_1(r_0)[/itex]. It then follows, under the assumptions of the previous problem, that
    [tex]
    (H_0 - H_1)'(r_0) = y_1(r_0) - y_0(r_0) > 0
    [/tex]
    which means that at that point [itex]H_0 - H_1[/itex] is strictly increasing. Thus locally [itex]H_0(r) < H_1(r)[/itex] if [itex]r < r_0[/itex] and [itex]H_0(r) > H_1(r)[/itex] if [itex]r > r_0[/itex].

    It follows that there exists at most one such [itex]r_0 \in (a,b][/itex], since once [itex]H_0 > H_1[/itex] the solutions can't intersect again in that interval; if they did then at that point [itex](H_0 - H_1)'[/itex] would not be strictly positive, which is impossible.

    Thus if [itex]H_0(a) > H_1(a)[/itex] then again it must follow that [itex]H_0(r) > H_1(r)[/itex] for all [itex]r \in (a,b][/itex].
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2013
  6. Oct 2, 2013 #5
    Beautiful solution, once again :)

    I was wondering, whether the fact that y is not necessarily continuous matters.

    Can I speak about [itex](H_0-H_1)'(r_0)[/itex] and [itex]y_0(r_0)-y_1(r_0)[/itex]?
    Or do I need to deal with [itex](H_0-H_1)'(r\rightarrow r_0^-)[/itex].
    And then, can I claim [itex]y_0(\rightarrow r_0^-)-y_1(r\rightarrow r_0^-)>0[/itex]? I think I can, since [itex]y_0(r_0)-y_1(r_0)>0[/itex] everywhere... But I'm not sure how to write that formally.
     
  7. Oct 3, 2013 #6

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    How badly behaved are the functions you are considering? If y is at least piecewise continuous then the above arguments will hold on each subinterval on which y is continuous.

    I think there also constraints on y in order for H to exist in the first place.
     
  8. Oct 3, 2013 #7

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    On closer inspection, it appears that if [itex]y_1 - y_0[/itex] and [itex]k[/itex] are not continuous then we can't necessarily show that [itex]H_0 > H_1[/itex].

    We want to use the sign of [itex](H_0 - H_1)'[/itex] to show that if [itex](H_0 - H_1)(r_0) = 0[/itex] then [itex]H_0 - H_1[/itex] is strictly increasing in an open neighborhood of [itex]r_0[/itex]. That is enough for us to conclude that if [itex]H_0 - H_1[/itex] is initially strictly positive then it remains strictly positive.

    More formally, we want to show that there exists [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] such that if [itex]|r - r_0| < \epsilon[/itex] then [itex](H_0 - H_1)'(r) > 0[/itex]. Then, by the mean value theorem, [itex]H_0 - H_1[/itex] will be strictly increasing on that interval. It is not necessary for the application of the mean value theorem that [itex](H_0 - H_1)'[/itex] be continuous. We do however need continuity, or at least suitable limiting behaviour, at [itex]r_0[/itex] in order to show that a suitable [itex]\epsilon > 0[/itex] exists.

    Now if [itex](H_0 - H_1)'[/itex] is continuous at [itex]r_0[/itex] then, since it is strictly positive at [itex]r_0[/itex], it follows that such an [itex]\epsilon[/itex] exists.

    However if [itex](H_0 - H_1)'[/itex] is not continuous at [itex]r_0[/itex] but
    [tex]\lim_{r \to r_0^{+}} (H_0 - H_1)'(r) = \lim_{r \to r_0^{+}} (y_1 - y_0)(r) > 0[/tex] and
    [tex]\lim_{r \to r_0^{-}} (H_0 - H_1)'(r) = \lim_{r \to r_0^{-}} (y_1 - y_0)(r) > 0[/tex]
    then that again guarantees the existence of such an [itex]\epsilon[/itex] (I am assuming here that
    [tex]
    \lim_{r \to r_0} (k(-H_0)H_0 - k(-H_1)H_1)(r) = 0
    [/tex]
    and if that is not the case then it is not the case that the limits of [itex](H_0 - H_1)'[/itex] and [itex]y_1 - y_0[/itex] are equal, and I don't see how to make further progress).

    But the most that the condition [itex]y_1(r) > y_0(r)[/itex] gives us is that
    [tex]\lim_{r \to r_0^{+}} (y_1 - y_0)(r) \geq 0[/tex]
    and
    [tex]\lim_{r \to r_0^{-}} (y_1 - y_0)(r) \geq 0[/tex]
    if those limits actually exist. If one of those limits is zero then it might be that [itex](H_0 - H_1)'[/itex] approaches zero only through negative values, and if one of those limits doesn't exist then we can't say anything at all.
     
  9. Oct 5, 2013 #8
    Well, we know that [itex]y_1(r)>y_0(r)[/itex] for all r.

    If y is defined for all r, isn't it necessarily piecewise continuous?

    k, at any rate, is continuous.

    It seems to me that there has to be a neighborhood to the left of [itex]r_0[/itex] in which [itex]y_1(r)-y_0(r)>k(-H_0)H_0-k(-H_1)H_1[/itex]...
     
  10. Oct 5, 2013 #9

    pasmith

    User Avatar
    Homework Helper

    In general, no. But since y is constrained to be strictly increasing https://www.physicsforums.com/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=4527279 [Broken] that the only discontinuities it can have are jump discontinuities, and there can only be a countable number of them. It follows that the only discontinuities [itex]y_1 - y_0[/itex] can have are jump discontinuities, and there can only be a countable number of them. It also follows that the necessary one-sided limits exist.

    Excellent; my approach should work.

    I'm not convinced that this is necessarily the case.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook