Question on orthogonal Legendre series expansion.

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the orthogonal Legendre series expansion, specifically addressing conflicting results obtained from two different approaches to evaluating integrals involving Legendre polynomials. Participants explore the implications of these approaches on the evaluation of integrals and the properties of Legendre polynomials.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents two methods (A and B) for evaluating the integral involving Legendre polynomials, noting that they yield different results for certain values of n.
  • Method A suggests that for n > 1, the integral evaluates to 0, while for n = 1, it evaluates to 2/3.
  • Method B leads to the conclusion that the integral is 0 for n > 1, as it relies on the property that the integral of Legendre polynomials over the interval [-1, 1] is 0 for odd n.
  • Another participant challenges the assertion that the integral of Legendre polynomials is 0 for all n, clarifying that it is 0 for odd n and 2 for even n, specifically when n = 0.
  • Further corrections are made regarding the validity of using certain identities for n = 0, with participants discussing the implications of n being non-negative.
  • One participant acknowledges previous errors in their understanding of the properties of Legendre polynomials and confirms that the results align when n = 1.
  • Another participant provides a proof for the integral of Legendre polynomials, reinforcing the orthogonality relation and confirming the correctness of the formula referenced in the discussion.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express disagreement regarding the properties of the integral of Legendre polynomials, particularly concerning the values of n. While some corrections are made, there is no clear consensus on the implications of these properties for the methods discussed.

Contextual Notes

The discussion highlights limitations in the understanding of the properties of Legendre polynomials, particularly regarding their integrals over specific intervals and the conditions under which certain identities can be applied. The implications of these properties remain unresolved in the context of the methods presented.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be useful for those studying mathematical methods in physics, particularly in relation to orthogonal polynomials and their applications in solving differential equations or evaluating integrals in mathematical physics.

yungman
Messages
5,741
Reaction score
291
This start out as homework but my question is not about helping me solving the problem but instead I get conflicting answers depend on what way I approach the problem and no way to resolve. I know the answer. I am not going to even present the original question, instead just the part that I have issue with. The difference is by using:

A) [itex]\int_{-1}^1 f(x)P_n(x)dx = \frac{1}{2^n n!}\int_{-1}^{1} f^n(x)(x^2-1)^n dx[/itex]

And

B) [tex](n+1)P_{n+1}(x) + nP_{n-1}(x) = (2n+1)xP_n(x)[/tex]



The function [itex]f(\theta) = cos(\theta)[/itex] and I want to compute:

[tex]\int_0^{\pi} f(\theta) sin(\theta) P_n(cos(\theta)d\theta[/tex]

[tex]= \int_0^{\pi} cos(\theta) sin(\theta) P_n(cos(\theta)d\theta \hbox { we let }x=cos(\theta) \Rightarrow dx=-sin(\theta) d \theta[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \int_0^{\pi} cos(\theta) sin(\theta) P_n(cos(\theta)d\theta = \int_{-1}^{1} x P_n(x)dx[/tex] (1)

Using A) This imply [itex]f(x)[/itex] is only first degree and [itex]\int_{-1}^{1} x P_n(cos(x)dx = 0[/itex] for n larger than 1. The answer is 0 for n=0 and 2/3 for n=1 and the rest is 0 for n>1.

But using B)

[tex]\int_{-1}^{1} x P_n(x)dx = \frac{n+1}{2n+1}\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n+1}(x)dx + \frac{n}{2n+1}\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n-1}(x)dx[/tex]

Recall [tex]\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n}(x)dx = 0 \;\Rightarrow\; \int_{-1}^{1} P_{n+1}(x)dx = \int_{-1}^{1} P_{n-1}(x)dx = 0[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \int_{-1}^{1} x P_n(x)dx = 0[/tex]

So you see you get two different answers using A) and B). I double and triple check this and I cannot see where I did wrong.
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
yungman said:
Recall [tex]\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n}(x)dx = 0[/tex].

This is not true for all n. [itex]P_n(-x) = (-1)^nP_n(x)[/itex], from which you can show that your identity is only valid if n is odd.
 
I was wrong on this:

[tex]\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n}(x)dx = 0 \hbox { only if n not equal to 0, equal to 2 if n=0 }[/tex]

I just post the question to confirm n cannot be negative. I am still waiting for the answer. If n cannot be negative, then one cannot use B) because [itex]\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n-1}(x)dx[/itex] is not legal for n=0. This will clarify my question that there is only one way I can get the answer.

And I was wrong on n=1. It is not zero. for n=1, I do get 2/3 as the answer, so it agree in both ways of calculation.
 
yungman said:
I was wrong on this:

[tex]\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n}(x)dx = 0 \hbox { only if n not equal to 0, equal to 2 if n=0 }[/tex]

That's still not correct. I'm not sure if you are just stating that it was wrong and you realize it now or if you think this is the corrected statement, so I will clarify: the correct statement is

[tex]\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n}(x)dx = \left\{\begin{array}{c c} 0~\mbox{if n is odd}\\2~\mbox{if n is even}\end{array}\right.[/tex]

As for your other question, n cannot be negative but you case still use n = 0 in the identity you labeled B): the [itex]P_{n-1}(x)[/itex] term vanishes in this case because it is multiplied by n, and indeed, you find that the identity tells you [itex]P_1(x) = xP_0(x)[/itex], which is true.
 
Mute said:
That's still not correct. I'm not sure if you are just stating that it was wrong and you realize it now or if you think this is the corrected statement, so I will clarify: the correct statement is

[tex]\int_{-1}^{1} P_{n}(x)dx = \left\{\begin{array}{c c} 0~\mbox{if n is odd}\\2~\mbox{if n is even}\end{array}\right.[/tex]

As for your other question, n cannot be negative but you case still use n = 0 in the identity you labeled B): the [itex]P_{n-1}(x)[/itex] term vanishes in this case because it is multiplied by n, and indeed, you find that the identity tells you [itex]P_1(x) = xP_0(x)[/itex], which is true.


Thanks for your help. If n=0,1,2...and [itex]P_{n-1}(x)[/itex] term disappeared for n=0, then that answer all my question.

Regarding the formula, it is correct and written in the book. To proof it is correct, we use the identity:

[tex]P'_{n+1}(x) = P'_{n-1}(x) +(2n+1)P_n(x) \hbox { and } P_{n+1}(1) = P_{n-1}(1) = 1 \hbox { and } P_{n+1}(-1) = P_{n-1}(-1) = (-1)^{n+1}P_{n-1}(1)[/tex]

[tex]\Rightarrow \int_{-1}^{1} P_{n}(x)dx = \frac{1}{2n+1} [P_{n+1}(x) - P_{n-1}(x)]_{-1}^1 = \frac{1}{2n+1}[P_{n+1}(1) - P_{n-1}(1) - P_{n+1}(-1) + P_{n-1}(-1)] = 0[/tex]

This is actually the bases of orthogonal relation of Legendre polynomial.

Thanks for your help.

Alan
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
945
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K