Solution verification of ODE using Frobenius' method

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around the verification of a solution to an ordinary differential equation (ODE) using Frobenius' method. The original poster presents a weakly singular ODE and attempts to derive solutions through a Laurent series expansion, leading to a comparison with a solution provided in a textbook.

Discussion Character

  • Mixed

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster outlines their approach to solving the ODE, detailing the derivation of coefficients for the series solution. Some participants question the correctness of the coefficients derived, particularly the treatment of the term involving the double factorial.

Discussion Status

Participants are actively engaging in identifying discrepancies between the original poster's solution and the textbook answer. There is acknowledgment of errors in the coefficient calculations, and some participants suggest alternative values for the initial coefficient to align with the textbook solution.

Contextual Notes

There is an ongoing discussion about the implications of the coefficients derived from the series expansion and how they affect the final solution. The original poster expresses confusion regarding the differences between their solution and the textbook answer, indicating a need for clarification on the assumptions made during the derivation.

psie
Messages
315
Reaction score
40
Homework Statement
Determine for ##t>0## all solutions ##x(t)## of the equation ##2t^2x''+3tx'-(1+t)x=0##.
Relevant Equations
The Frobenius method (see e.g. Wikipedia).
I have no problems with solving this exercise, but my solution disagrees slightly with that given in the answers in the back of the book, and I do not know who's correct.

First, we rewrite the equation as $$x''+\frac{3}{2t}x'-\frac{(1+t)}{2t^2}x=0.\tag1$$ We recognize that this is so-called weakly singular, i.e. the coefficients in front of ##x'## has at most a simple pole and that in front of ##x## at most a double pole. The first term in the Laurent expansion of the coefficients are ##\frac{3}{2}## and ##-\frac{1}{2}## respectively. Thus the indicial polynomial reads $$\mu(\mu-1)+\frac{3}{2}\mu-\frac{1}{2},$$ which has roots ##-1## and ##\frac{1}{2}##. Since these do not differ by an integer, our two linearly independent solutions will be of the form $$y(t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty a_k t^{k-1}\quad\text{and}\quad z(t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty b_k t^{k+\frac{1}{2}}.$$ I will only solve for the coefficients ##b_k##, since I get the answer as in the book for the coefficients ##a_k##. We have that the first and second derivative of ##z(t)## are $$z'(t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right) b_k t^{k-\frac{1}{2}}\quad\text{and}\quad z''(t)=\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(k-\frac{1}{2}\right)b_k t^{k-\frac{3}{2}}.$$ Plugging these into the equation ##(1)##, we get \begin{align}
\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(k-\frac{1}{2}\right)b_k t^{k-\frac{3}{2}}&+\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{3}{2}\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)b_k t^{k-\frac{3}{2}} -\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2} b_k t^{k-\frac{3}{2}}\nonumber \\ &- \sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2} b_k t^{k-\frac{1}{2}}=0 \nonumber
\end{align}
We can bring the powers of ##t^{k-\frac{3}{2}}## under a single sum, so the equation reads
$$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)\left(k-\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{3}{2}\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\right)b_k t^{k-\frac{3}{2}}-\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2} b_k t^{k-\frac{1}{2}}=0.$$ Here we can see that the first term in the first sum vanishes, so it really starts from ##k=1##, i.e. $$\sum_{k=1}^\infty \Big(\ldots\Big)b_k t^{k-\frac{3}{2}}-\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2} b_k t^{k-\frac{1}{2}}=0.$$ Re-indexing the first sum so that it starts from ##k=0## again, we get $$\sum_{k=0}^\infty \left(\left(k+\frac{3}{2}\right)\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{3}{2}\left(k+\frac{3}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\right)b_{k+1} t^{k-\frac{1}{2}}-\sum_{k=0}^\infty \frac{1}{2} b_k t^{k-\frac{1}{2}}=0.$$ Here we can again write everything under a single sum and since that sum equals zero, the coefficients vanish. You can read off the recurrence relation from the previous equation, it is \begin{align}
&\qquad&\frac{1}{2}b_k&=\left(\left(k+\frac{3}{2}\right)\left(k+\frac{1}{2}\right)+\frac{3}{2}\left(k+\frac{3}{2}\right)-\frac{1}{2}\right)b_{k+1} \nonumber\\
&\iff&b_k&=(k+1)(2k+5)b_{k+1} \nonumber
\end{align}
We see that ##b_0## is quite arbitrary, so put ##b_0=C##, then $$b_1=\frac{C}{5},\quad b_2=\frac{C}{2\cdot5\cdot 7},\quad b_3=\frac{C}{2\cdot 3\cdot5\cdot 7\cdot 9},\quad \ldots.$$ We reach the conclusion that $$b_k=\frac{C}{k!(2k+3)!!},\quad k=1,2,\ldots.$$So the solution reads $$Ct^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(1+\sum_{k=1}^\infty\frac{t^k}{k!(2k+3)!!}\right).$$ The solution given in the book is $$Ct^{\frac{1}{2}}\left(\sum_{k=0}^\infty\frac{t^k}{k!(2k+3)!!}\right).$$
This is not the same as my solution. Any ideas?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
psie said:
so put ##b_0=C##, then $$b_1=\frac{C}{5},\quad b_2=\frac{C}{2\cdot5\cdot 7},\quad b_3=\frac{C}{2\cdot 3\cdot5\cdot 7\cdot 9},\quad \ldots.$$ We reach the conclusion that $$b_k=\frac{C}{k!(2k+3)!!},\quad k=1,2,\ldots.$$
This is wrong. The ##(2k + 5)## term starts at 5 when ##k=0## so it gives rise to a factor ##1/(5\cdot 7 \cdot \ldots \cdot(2k + 3)) \neq 1/(3\cdot 5\cdot \ldots \cdot (2k + 3)) = 1/(2k +3)!!##
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie
You're right, I was wrong there. To resolve this, I am tempted to just write ##b_0=C/3##, yet this doesn't feel right for some reason. The solution given in the book confuses me.
 
psie said:
You're right, I was wrong there. To resolve this, I am tempted to just write ##b_0=C/3##, yet this doesn't feel right for some reason. The solution given in the book confuses me.
Yes, you solve it by letting ##b_0 = C/3## … and then you get the expression from the book since ##0!(2\cdot 0 +3)!! = 3##.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: psie

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 14 ·
Replies
14
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K