Reduction of order for Second Order Differential Equation

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on solving the second-order differential equation, specifically the equation ##tv^{''} + v^{'} = 0##. The user attempted to apply the substitution ##v(t) = e^{rt}##, leading to the characteristic equation ##tr^2 + r = 0##, resulting in solutions ##r = 0## and ##r = -\frac{1}{t}##. However, a respondent pointed out that the method is invalid due to the assumption of constant coefficients, as the equation is of Cauchy-Euler form. The respondent emphasized that the ansatz used is appropriate only for ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with constant coefficients.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of second-order differential equations
  • Familiarity with the Cauchy-Euler equation
  • Knowledge of the method of substitution in solving ODEs
  • Basic concepts of characteristic equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the Cauchy-Euler differential equation and its solutions
  • Learn about appropriate ansatz for non-constant coefficient ODEs
  • Explore the method of undetermined coefficients for solving ODEs
  • Investigate the implications of variable coefficients in differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, engineering students, and anyone studying differential equations, particularly those interested in advanced methods for solving non-constant coefficient ODEs.

member 731016
Homework Statement
Please see below. I am trying to find the reduction of order for a second order ODE using an alternative method than shown in the textbook.
Relevant Equations
Ansatz ##v(t) = e^{rt}##
For this,
1712532117885.png

I tried solving the differential equation using an alternative method. My alternative method starts at

##tv^{''} + v^{'} = 0##
I substitute ##v(t) = e^{rt}## into the equation getting,
##tr^2e^{rt} + re^{rt} = 0##
##e^{rt}[tr^2 + r] = 0##
##e^{rt} = 0## or ##tr^2 + r = 0##
Note that ##e^{rt} ≠ 0##
##tr^2 + r = 0##
##r(tr + 1) = 0##
##r = 0## or ##r = -\frac{1}{t}##

Thus, ##v_1 = e^0 = 1## and ##v_2 = e^{-1} = \frac{1}{e}##

Note that ##v_1 = 1## is a trivial solution since it is just ##x_2 = t = x_1##, however, for ##v_2##, we get ##x_2 = \frac{t}{e}##.

However, ##x_2 = \frac{t}{e}## is just another multiple of ##x_1##. Is it possible to get ##t\log_e(t)## using my method?

Thanks.

Any help greatly appreciated - Chiral.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
You are assuming v(t)=ert to try to get the solution v(t)=ln(t). Do you see the problem?
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes member 731016 and MatinSAR
Your method is invalid. You assume ##e^{rt}## is a solution with constant ##r## and then arrive at ##r = -1/t##. By coincidence ##r=0## makes your ansatz coincide with one of the solutions, but when you find non-constant ##r## you should realize that your ansatz did not work.

Why is this the case? The ansatz ##e^{rt}## is a good ansatz for ODEs with constant coefficients. Your ODE does not have constant coefficients. Instead, it is of Caucy-Euler form.
 
  • Like
  • Love
Likes member 731016 and MatinSAR
Question: A clock's minute hand has length 4 and its hour hand has length 3. What is the distance between the tips at the moment when it is increasing most rapidly?(Putnam Exam Question) Answer: Making assumption that both the hands moves at constant angular velocities, the answer is ## \sqrt{7} .## But don't you think this assumption is somewhat doubtful and wrong?

Similar threads

Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
1K
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
3K
Replies
11
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K