Seperation of Variables (double check please

FrogPad
Messages
801
Reaction score
0
Seperation of Variables (double check please :)

I have a final coming up, and I want to make sure I have this method down.

Q: For the second-order wave equation u_{tt}=u_{xx}, the substitution of u=A(x)B(t) will give second-order equations for A nd B when the x and t variables are seperated. From B''/B=A''/A=\omega^2, find all solutions of the form u=A(x)B(t)

Assume: u(x,t)=A(x)B(t)

\frac{A(x)B''(t)}{A(x)B(t)}=\frac{A''(x)B(t)}{A(x)B(t)}

\frac{B''}{B}=\frac{A''}{A}=-\omega^2 is a second order ODE of the form:

B''+\omega^2 B = 0

Solving yields:
B(t)=c_1 \cos \omega t + c_2 \sin \omega t with the assumption that \omega > 0

and:
A(x)=d_1 \cos \omega x + d_2 \sin \omega x

therefore:
u(x,t) = A(x)B(t)= (c_1 \cos \omega t + c_2 \sin \omega t)(d_1 \cos \omega x + d_2 \sin \omega x)

And this is simply all the solutions right? It seems really straightforward, but sometimes when I think it is... it totally isn't. Thanks
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
First, why are you assuming that the constant value is -\omega^2? Is there a boundary condition you didn't mention?

No, that is not "all the solutions". Any linear combination of solutions, for different \omega is also a solution. The general sum would involve a sum over all possible values of \omega. What the possible values are goes back to that boundary condition I mentioned.
 
The question is verbatim from the text. I used -\omega^2 as the assumpition, as I was told to in the question itself.

I'm not exactly sure what you are saying that any linear combination satisfies the equation. I see that any \omega value satisfies u_tt = u_xx. Since there is no boundary condition can't \omega be anything?
 
Ahh.. Well there really isn't anything else in my book about separation of variables, but I've read up a little more on them. I understand what you mean by the linear combination and the factor. Since the "terms" each will differentiate to 0 they can each have a constant in front and are indpendent of each other. Interesting.

My professor did not go into separation of variables for more than 25 minutes the whole semester. We only had three problems to do also...

so anyways. Thanks for the comments man, it allowed me to read up on some interesting stuff.
 
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