Second Order Linear Differential Equation Question

VeganGirl
Messages
10
Reaction score
0

Homework Statement


Solve the IVP, \frac{1}{4}y'' + 16y = 0
y(0)=\frac{1}{4}
y'(0)=0

Answer is given... y(t) = \frac{1}{4}cos 8t


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


This has the characteristic equation \frac{1}{4} \lambda^2 +16\lambda=0
Solving for lambda, I got \lambda= 0 or -64

Therefore y(t) = A*e^(0t) + B*e^(-64t) for some constants A and B
\Rightarrow y(t) = A + B*e^(-64t)

I know that I'll have to impose the initial conditions to get the specific solution, but my general solution is very different from the answer given. What am I doing wrong?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
VeganGirl said:

The Attempt at a Solution


This has the characteristic equation \frac{1}{4} \lambda^2 +16\lambda=0

This part is wrong. If you use the solution y =ert, your equation will be

(1/4)r2+16=0

which will give you complex roots.
 
VeganGirl said:

Homework Statement


Solve the IVP, \frac{1}{4}y'' + 16y = 0
y(0)=\frac{1}{4}
y'(0)=0

Answer is given... y(t) = \frac{1}{4}cos 8t


Homework Equations





The Attempt at a Solution


This has the characteristic equation \frac{1}{4} \lambda^2 +16\lambda=0
No, the characteristic equation is
\frac{1}{4}\lambda^2 +16 = 0

or, equivalently,
\lambda^2 +64 = 0


VeganGirl said:
Solving for lambda, I got \lambda= 0 or -64

Therefore y(t) = A*e^(0t) + B*e^(-64t) for some constants A and B
\Rightarrow y(t) = A + B*e^(-64t)

I know that I'll have to impose the initial conditions to get the specific solution, but my general solution is very different from the answer given. What am I doing wrong?
 
Ohhh that's where I went wrong. Thanks guys!
 
There are two things I don't understand about this problem. First, when finding the nth root of a number, there should in theory be n solutions. However, the formula produces n+1 roots. Here is how. The first root is simply ##\left(r\right)^{\left(\frac{1}{n}\right)}##. Then you multiply this first root by n additional expressions given by the formula, as you go through k=0,1,...n-1. So you end up with n+1 roots, which cannot be correct. Let me illustrate what I mean. For this...
Back
Top