Undergrad Second order non-homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation

Click For Summary
The discussion centers on the confusion surrounding the solution of the Second Order Non-homogeneous Linear Ordinary Differential Equation as presented in Prof. Arthur Mattuck's lecture. The participant understands the solution when the polynomial operator P(α) is not zero but struggles with the case when P(α) equals zero, particularly regarding the interpretation of roots and the differentiation of operators. There is a specific inquiry about how a root can be associated with an operator and the meaning of differentiating an operator with respect to another operator. Additionally, the participant seeks clarification on how the form of the particular solution, y_p = x e^{ax} / P'(a), is derived. The discussion highlights the complexities of understanding operator notation and polynomial roots in the context of differential equations.
Hall
Messages
351
Reaction score
87
I shall not begin with expressing my annoyance at the perfect equality between the number of people studying ODE and the numbers of ways of solving the Second Order Non-homogeneous Linear Ordinary Differential Equation (I'm a little doubtful about the correct syntactical position of 'linear').

I'm studying from Prof. Arthur Mattuck's lectures, and it is the lecture #13 which is confusing me. He embarks on solving (if someone who has seen my other thread can he tell me whether I have used 'embark' (an intransitive verb) in a correct way?)
$$
\begin{align*}
y^{''} + Ay^{'} + By = e^{\alpha x} &&\textrm{where α is a complex number}
\end{align*}
$$
And writes the LHS as ##P(D) y## which I understand totally. The case when ##P(\alpha) \neq 0## is clear to me, the solution is
$$
y_p = \frac{e^{\alpha x} }{P(\alpha)}
$$
But when he moves to the case when ##P(\alpha) = 0##, I get a little confused. Though, I can prove
$$
\begin{align*}
P(D) e^{ax} u(x) = e^{ax} P(D+a) u(x) && \textrm{ it's no longer α, we got a there, but it is still complex}
\end{align*}
$$
Now, I don't understand things from time : 37:00 in the linked video. My doubts are thus:
  • He says "if a is simple root of P(D)" then the solution is ##y_p = \frac{x e^{ax} }{P'(a)}##. How can ##a## be a root of ##P(D)## which is an operator? The operator have a null space not a solution set. We should say if ##a## is a solution of polynomial ##P(x)##.
  • The second doubt is concerning the differentiation of ##P(D)##. I still don't understand what does a derivative of an operator mean, and above that with respect to another operator ##D##.
I hope my doubt shall be resolved.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
He's talking about the polynomial ##P##, which is just a polynomial. It is only when you take ##P(D)## that the entire thing becomes an operator. So simply consider what happens to the polynomial. (He should probably have written it has ##P(z)## or something like this.)
 
  • Like
Likes Hall and topsquark
DrClaude said:
He's talking about the polynomial ##P##, which is just a polynomial. It is only when you take ##P(D)## that the entire thing becomes an operator. So simply consider what happens to the polynomial. (He should probably have written it has ##P(z)## or something like this.)
Thanks for clearing that.

I'm just wondering how he guessed ##y_p = \frac{x e^{ax} }{P'(a)}##? Yes, it works but how he got it?
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K