Reduction of order for Second Order Differential Equation

Click For Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the second-order differential equation tv'' + v' = 0 using an alternative method. The user attempts to substitute v(t) = e^(rt) but encounters issues when deriving the roots, leading to r = 0 and r = -1/t. It is noted that while r = 0 yields a trivial solution, the non-constant r indicates that the initial assumption was flawed. The responder points out that the method used is inappropriate for the given equation, which is of Cauchy-Euler form rather than having constant coefficients. The conversation highlights the importance of selecting the correct approach for solving specific types of differential equations.
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
First, I tried to show that ##f_n## converges uniformly on ##[0,2\pi]##, which is true since ##f_n \rightarrow 0## for ##n \rightarrow \infty## and ##\sigma_n=\mathrm{sup}\left| \frac{\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x\right)}{n^{x^2-3x+3}} \right| \leq \frac{1}{|n^{x^2-3x+3}|} \leq \frac{1}{n^{\frac 34}}\rightarrow 0##. I can't use neither Leibnitz's test nor Abel's test. For Dirichlet's test I would need to show, that ##\sin\left(\frac{n^2}{n+\frac 15}x \right)## has partialy bounded sums...