Solution to a DE using variation of parameters

Click For Summary
The discussion revolves around using the method of variation of parameters to solve a differential equation, specifically showing that a given function is the general solution to y'' + y = f(t). The participant initially struggled with the logic behind using definite integrals in the solution and the necessity of expressing "v" functions in terms of a dummy variable "s." Clarifications were provided on how the choice of variable for integration does not affect the outcome, as it serves merely as a placeholder. The relationship between differentiation and definite integrals was emphasized, explaining that differentiating an integral with respect to its upper limit yields the integrand evaluated at that limit. Ultimately, the participant expressed satisfaction with the explanations and gained a clearer understanding of the concepts involved.
Xyius
Messages
501
Reaction score
4
I was looking through my DE book and a problem intrigued me. I eventually figured it out but I do not understand the logic. I was wondering if anyone here could help me out.

The question says:
Use the method of variation of parameters to show that..

y(t)=c_{1}cos(t)+c_{2}sin(t)+\int^{t}_{0}sin(t-s)ds

.. is the general solution to the equation..

y''+y'=f(t)

Where f(t) is a continuous function on the real number line. (HINT: Use the trigonometric identity sin(t-s)=sin(t)cos(s)-sin(s)cos(t).

The way I solved it was to first find the homogeneous solution and then use variation of parameters to obtain..

y_{p}(t)=v_{1}cos(t)+v_{2}sin(t)

The odd part that I do not understand, is I had to make both "v" functions in terms of "s" to obtain the correct form of the solution.

The whole concept of using a definite integral in a differential equation is foreign to me and I do not understand it.

If anyone can help me understand this with a solid logic behind the solution it would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Xyius said:
I was looking through my DE book and a problem intrigued me. I eventually figured it out but I do not understand the logic. I was wondering if anyone here could help me out.

The question says:
Use the method of variation of parameters to show that..

y(t)=c_{1}cos(t)+c_{2}sin(t)+\int^{t}_{0}sin(t-s)ds

.. is the general solution to the equation..

Surely you have left the function f out of that answer. Probably an f(s) in the integrand.

y''+y'=f(t)

And also that is supposed to be y'' + y = f(t)

Where f(t) is a continuous function on the real number line. (HINT: Use the trigonometric identity sin(t-s)=sin(t)cos(s)-sin(s)cos(t).

The way I solved it was to first find the homogeneous solution and then use variation of parameters to obtain..

y_{p}(t)=v_{1}cos(t)+v_{2}sin(t)

The odd part that I do not understand, is I had to make both "v" functions in terms of "s" to obtain the correct form of the solution.

The whole concept of using a definite integral in a differential equation is foreign to me and I do not understand it.

If anyone can help me understand this with a solid logic behind the solution it would be GREATLY appreciated. Thanks!

You didn't show your work but I'm guessing you got these two equations:

v_1' = -f(t)\sin(t)

v_2' = f(t)\cos(t)

and you are confused by writing

v_1(t) = \int_0^t -f(s)\sin(s)\, ds

v_2(t) = \int_0^t f(s)\cos(s)\, ds

What you need to notice is that the variable s under the integral is a dummy variable. It doesn't matter what letter you use there because when you take the antiderivative you are going to substitute the upper and lower limits in for s anyway. These integrals are functions of t because of the upper limit. And by the fundamental theorem of calculus, if you differentiate either of them with respect to t, you just get the integrand with t substituted in for the s, so they are correct antiderivatives.

When you put them in your yp you get the required formula.
 
Wow I apologize for all the mistakes! It was 2 am! Ha!

Thank you very much you have helped a lot but I still do not understand the point of introducing the variable "s". If it is incorrect to write the "v" functions in terms of "s" then when I plug everything in I do not have any s's in the final solution.

Also I do not understand one other thing you said. Why will I obtain the integrand if I differentiate the integral with respect to t? The differential is ds. I DO understand what you said that the integral is actually a a function of t because of the limits. Somehow things aren't adding up for me. :\
 
Xyius said:
Wow I apologize for all the mistakes! It was 2 am! Ha!

Thank you very much you have helped a lot but I still do not understand the point of introducing the variable "s". If it is incorrect to write the "v" functions in terms of "s" then when I plug everything in I do not have any s's in the final solution.

Also I do not understand one other thing you said. Why will I obtain the integrand if I differentiate the integral with respect to t? The differential is ds. I DO understand what you said that the integral is actually a a function of t because of the limits. Somehow things aren't adding up for me. :\

It doesn't matter what letter you use for the integration variable. You could even use t but that is a bad idea because it causes confusion between it and the upper limit.

Look at this example. Say you have a function f(t) and you have taken its antiderivative and let's call it F(t), so F'(t) = f(t). Now, if you were doing a definite integral you would write

F(b) - F(a) = \int_a^b f(t)\, dt

And you get the same thing using s for the dummy variable:

F(b) - F(a) = \int_a^b f(s)\, ds

Now let's let b = t and a = 0 and we can write

F(t) = F(0) + \int_0^t f(s)\, ds

Now look what happens if you differentiate both sides with respect to t. We know F'(t) = f(t) from above. F(0) is a constant which goes away. So you have the derivative of the integral as a function of its upper limit on the right:

F'(t) = f(t) = \frac d {dt}\int_0^t f(s)\, ds

That's why you get f(t) when you differentiate the integral as a function of its upper limit.
 
Ohh okay! Makes perfect sense!

Lemme just make sure I really nail this down. Does that mean I can write the integral

F(x) = \int f(x)cos(x)dx

as

\int ^{x}_{\frac{\pi}{2}}f(s)cos(s)ds

because

\int ^{x}_{\frac{\pi}{2}}f(s)cos(s)ds = F(x)-F(\frac{\pi}{2})

and

F(\frac{\pi}{2}) = \int f(\frac{\pi}{2})cos(\frac{\pi}{2})dx = 0
 
Xyius said:
Ohh okay! Makes perfect sense!

Lemme just make sure I really nail this down. Does that mean I can write the integral

F(x) = \int f(x)cos(x)dx

as

\int ^{x}_{\frac{\pi}{2}}f(s)cos(s)ds

because

\int ^{x}_{\frac{\pi}{2}}f(s)cos(s)ds = F(x)-F(\frac{\pi}{2})

and

F(\frac{\pi}{2}) = \int f(\frac{\pi}{2})cos(\frac{\pi}{2})dx = 0

No, its best not to mix up indefinite integrals with definite ones. When you write

F(t) - F(a) = \int_a^t f(s)\, ds

F(t) = \int_a^t f(s)\, ds + F(a)

the F(a) is like the constant of integration in an indefinite integral. If you change a to a different value c, the two expressions for F(t) will differ by a constant. In your original problem, you were looking for a particular solution so it didn't matter what the lower limit was. 0 was just a convenient choice.
 
Cool! Thank you very much I understand completely now :D
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K