Regular Sturm-Liouville, one-dimensional eigenfunctspace

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter usn7564
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Regular
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the Sturm-Liouville problem defined by the equation \(\frac{d}{dx} (r(x) \frac{dX}{dx}) + q(x)X(x) + \lambda p(x) X(x) = 0\) with boundary conditions \(a_1 X(a) + a_2X'(a) = 0\) and \(b_1 X(b) + b_2X'(b) = 0\). A key theorem states that if \(r(a) > 0\) or \(r(b) > 0\), the boundary value problem (BVP) cannot have two linearly independent eigenfunctions for the same eigenvalue. The proof involves showing that if \(z(a) = z'(a) = 0\), then \(z(x) = 0\) for all \(x\) in the interval, confirming the uniqueness of the solution.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Sturm-Liouville theory
  • Familiarity with boundary value problems (BVP)
  • Knowledge of eigenvalues and eigenfunctions
  • Basic calculus and differential equations
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the properties of Sturm-Liouville operators
  • Explore the uniqueness theorem for boundary value problems
  • Learn about the implications of boundary conditions in differential equations
  • Investigate applications of Sturm-Liouville theory in physics and engineering
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, physicists, and engineers interested in differential equations, particularly those working with Sturm-Liouville problems and boundary value problems.

usn7564
Messages
61
Reaction score
0
Sturm-Liouville problem:
\frac{d}{dx} (r(x) \frac{dX}{dx}) + q(x)X(x) + \lambda p(x) X(x) = 0 \quad x \in \left[a, b \right]
a_1 X(a) + a_2X'(a) = 0
b_1 X(b) + b_2X'(b) = 0
r, r', q, p \in \mathbb{C} \forall x \in in \left[a, b \right]

Theorem:
Under the additional condition that r(a)>0 (or r(b) > 0), the S.L BVP cannot have two linearly independent eigenfunctions corresponding to the same eigenvalue.

Proof:
X, Y two eigenfunctions corresponding to the same eigenvalue. Then Z = Y(a)X(x) - X(a)Y(x) is also a solution and it can be shown that [skipping how to get z(a), z'(a) as there's no real problem there for me]

z(a) = z'(a) = 0 \implies z(x) = 0 \forall x \in \left[a, b \right]
QED, catfoots and other scribbles.

Question:
I don't get the final implication at all. Why does knowing that z(a) and z'(a) = 0 at x = a show that z(x) is identically zero over the interval in question?
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
z is a solution to the SL problem with boundary conditions z(a) and z'(a)=0. The trivial solution f(x)=0 also is. Uniqueness leads to z=0.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: usn7564
Explains why it wasn't elaborated further, feel silly now. Thank you, need to remind myself of BVP's it seems.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
2K