Solve second order linear differential equation

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around solving a second order linear ordinary differential equation (ODE) of the form $$xy'' + (b-x)y' - ay = 0$$. Participants explore series solutions, the implications of parameter values, and methods for finding independent solutions when parameters lead to repeated roots.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a series solution and derives two forms of solutions, questioning the independence of these solutions when ##b=1##.
  • Another participant suggests a transformation to find a solution of the form ##y=Ce^{\frac{a}{b}x}##, but later corrects themselves after checking the validity against the original ODE.
  • Several participants discuss the application of Frobenius' method, noting the indicial equation and recurrence relations that arise, with some consistency in their findings.
  • There is a proposal to use l'Hopital's rule to find a second independent solution when ##b=1##, leading to a limit involving derivatives of the function ##M##.
  • One participant questions the correctness of another's steps in deriving the limit, suggesting a different approach to evaluating the derivatives involved.
  • Another participant points out that the proposed solution involving logarithmic terms does not satisfy the original ODE, leading to further clarification on the differentiation process required for the function ##M##.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the correctness of certain proposed solutions and methods for finding independent solutions. There is no consensus on the validity of some approaches, particularly regarding the handling of derivatives and the application of l'Hopital's rule.

Contextual Notes

Some participants highlight the need for careful evaluation of derivatives and the implications of parameter choices on the solutions. There are unresolved questions about the independence of solutions and the correctness of specific mathematical steps taken in the discussion.

lriuui0x0
Messages
101
Reaction score
25
Consider the second order linear ODE with parameters ##a, b##:

$$
xy'' + (b-x)y' - ay = 0
$$

By considering the series solution ##y=\sum c_mx^m##, I have obtained two solutions of the following form:

$$
\begin{aligned}
y_1 &= M(x, a, b) \\
y_2 &= x^{1-b}M(x, a-b+1, 2-b) \\
\end{aligned}
$$

Where ##M## is a function after solving the recurrence coefficients, please feel free to check if my result is correct:

$$
M(x, a, b) = \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}(a+i)}{m!\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}(b+i)}x^m
$$

The question is if ##b=1##, we get repeated root and ##y_1 = y_2## hence linearly dependent. How to obtain a second independent solution? The problem has a hint of considering the following limit:

$$
\lim_{b \to 1} \frac{y_2 - y_1}{b - 1}
$$
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I observe in case ##a=b## the solution, other than trivial y=const,. is ##y=Ce^x## which meets with your result. It shows any constant A could be multiplied. For general a, b by transforming
y=e^{z(x)} to see differential equation of z, could you check/correct
y=Ce^{\frac{a}{b}x}
is a solution ?
 
Last edited:
anuttarasammyak said:
I observe in case ##a=b## the solution, other than trivial y=const,. is ##y=Ce^x## which meets with your result. It shows any constant A could be multiplied. For general a, b by transforming
y=e^{z(x)} to see differential equation of z, could you check/correct
y=Ce^{\frac{a}{b}x}
is a solution ?
It's not a solution:

let ##y=e^{\frac{a}{b}x}##, then the LHS of the differential equation is:

$$
\frac{a^2}{b^2}xe^{\frac{a}{b}x} + (b-x) \frac{a}{b}e^{\frac{a}{b}x} - ae^{\frac{a}{b}x} \ne 0
$$
 
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak
Thank you so much for correction. Following your way I got
c_{m+1}=\frac{a+m}{(m+1)(b+m)}c_m
for m=0,1,2,.. with ##c_0## given which is your ##y_1##. I do not find the way to get ##y_2##.
 
lriuui0x0 said:
Consider the second order linear ODE with parameters ##a, b##:

$$
xy'' + (b-x)y' - ay = 0
$$

By considering the series solution ##y=\sum c_mx^m##, I have obtained two solutions of the following form:

$$
\begin{aligned}
y_1 &= M(x, a, b) \\
y_2 &= x^{1-b}M(x, a-b+1, 2-b) \\
\end{aligned}
$$

Where ##M## is a function after solving the recurrence coefficients, please feel free to check if my result is correct:

$$
M(x, a, b) = \sum_{m=0}^\infty \frac{\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}(a+i)}{m!\prod_{i=0}^{m-1}(b+i)}x^m
$$

Applying Frobenius' Method and setting y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_nx^{n+r} with c_0 \neq 0 I obtained the indicial equation r(r - 1 + b) = 0 and the recurrence relation <br /> c_{n+1} = \frac{n + r + a}{(n + r + 1)(n + r + b)}c_n which are consistent with your result, althouh I would have used the property of the Gamma function that \Gamma(z + 1) = z \Gamma(z) to evaluate the products.

(@anuttarasammyak: Just using an integer power series, which to be fair is what @lriuui0x0 said they did, won't pick up the r = 1 - b solution.)

The question is if ##b=1##, we get repeated root and ##y_1 = y_2## hence linearly dependent. How to obtain a second independent solution? The problem has a hint of considering the following limit:

$$
\lim_{b \to 1} \frac{y_2 - y_1}{b - 1}
$$

y_1 and (y_2 - y_1)/(b-1) are linearly independent for any b \neq 1; for b = 1 you can use l'Hopital's rule to calculate <br /> \lim_{b \to 1} \frac{x^{1-b}M(x,a-b+1, 2-b) - M(x,a,b)}{b-1} = <br /> - M(x,a,1)\log x - \left.\frac{\partial M}{\partial a}\right|_{(x,a,1)} - 2\left.\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}\right|_{(x,a,1)}<br /> and show that the result is a solution of the ODE which is linearly independent of M(x,a,1).
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak
pasmith said:
Applying Frobenius' Method and setting y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_nx^{n+r} with c_0 \neq 0 I obtained the indicial equation r(r - 1 + b) = 0 and the recurrence relation <br /> c_{n+1} = \frac{n + r + a}{(n + r + 1)(n + r + b)}c_n which are consistent with your result, althouh I would have used the property of the Gamma function that \Gamma(z + 1) = z \Gamma(z) to evaluate the products.

(@anuttarasammyak: Just using an integer power series, which to be fair is what @lriuui0x0 said they did, won't pick up the r = 1 - b solution.)
y_1 and (y_2 - y_1)/(b-1) are linearly independent for any b \neq 1; for b = 1 you can use l'Hopital's rule to calculate <br /> \lim_{b \to 1} \frac{x^{1-b}M(x,a-b+1, 2-b) - M(x,a,b)}{b-1} =<br /> - M(x,a,1)\log x - \left.\frac{\partial M}{\partial a}\right|_{(x,a,1)} - 2\left.\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}\right|_{(x,a,1)}<br /> and show that the result is a solution of the ODE which is linearly independent of M(x,a,1).
Just to double check on these steps. I got slightly different result compared with yours that doesn't involve partial derivative of ##a##. Does it look correct?

Expand the limit with l'Hopital's rule:

$$

\begin{aligned} &\phantom{{}={}}\lim_{b\to 1}\frac{y_2-y_1}{b-1} \\ &= \biggl[\frac{\partial}{\partial b}(x^{1-b}M(x,a-b+1,2-b) - M(x,a,b))\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= \biggl[-x^{1-b}\ln x M(x,a-b+1,2-b) + x^{1-b}\frac{\partial M(x,a-b+1,2-b)}{\partial b} - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= -M(x,a,1)\ln x + \biggl[\frac{\partial M(x,a-b+1,2-b)}{\partial b} - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= -M(x,a,1)\ln x + \biggl[\frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}(-2) - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= -M(x,a,1)\ln x - 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1) \\ \end{aligned}

$$Check the Wronskian of ##y_1 = M(x,a,1)## and ##y_2 = -M(x,a,1)\ln x - 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1)##:$$

\begin{aligned} &\phantom{{}={}} y_1y_2'-y_2y_1' \\ &= M(x,a,1)(-\frac{\partial M}{\partial x}(x,a,1)\ln x - M(x,a,1)\frac{1}{x} - 3\frac{\partial^2M}{\partial x\partial b}(x,a,1)) - \frac{\partial M}{\partial x}(x,a,1)(-M(x,a,1)\ln x - 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1)) \\ &= -M(x,a,1)^2 \frac{1}{x} -3M(x,a,1)\frac{\partial^2M}{\partial x\partial b}(x,a,1) + 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial x}(x,a,1)\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1) \end{aligned}

$$When ##x \to 0##, the Wronskian diverges because of the ##\frac{1}{x}## term, so it's non-zero. Hence ##y_1, y_2## are independent.
 
lriuui0x0 said:
Just to double check on these steps. I got slightly different result compared with yours that doesn't involve partial derivative of ##a##. Does it look correct?

Expand the limit with l'Hopital's rule:

$$

\begin{aligned} &\phantom{{}={}}\lim_{b\to 1}\frac{y_2-y_1}{b-1} \\ &= \biggl[\frac{\partial}{\partial b}(x^{1-b}M(x,a-b+1,2-b) - M(x,a,b))\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= \biggl[-x^{1-b}\ln x M(x,a-b+1,2-b) + x^{1-b}\frac{\partial M(x,a-b+1,2-b)}{\partial b} - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= -M(x,a,1)\ln x + \biggl[\frac{\partial M(x,a-b+1,2-b)}{\partial b} - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= -M(x,a,1)\ln x + \biggl[\frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}(-2) - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\ &= -M(x,a,1)\ln x - 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1) \\ \end{aligned}

$$

You haven't checked that -M(x,a,1) \ln x - 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial b} actually solves the ODE; it doesn't. If L(y) = xy&#039;&#039; + (b-x)y&#039; - ay then differentiating partially with respect to b results in \frac{\partial}{\partial b}L(y) = L\left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial b}\right) + y&#039; and you can also show that L(y \ln x) = L(y) \ln x + 2y&#039; - y + \frac{(b-1)y}{x}. Since L(M) = 0 for all a and b you can see that L\left(M \ln x + 3 \frac{\partial M}{\partial b}\right) = -M&#039; - M when b = 1.

The problem is that you haven't calculated the derivative of M(x,a-b+1, 2-b) with respect to b correctly. By \frac{\partial M}{\partial b} we mean the derivative of M(x,a,b) with respect to b with x and a constant. But you are looking at f(x,a,b) = M(x, g(a,b),h(a,b)) with g(a,b) = a-b+1 and h(a,b) = 2 - b rather than M(x,a,b). The multivariate chain rule then gives \frac{\partial f}{\partial b} = -\frac{\partial M}{\partial a} - \frac{\partial M}{\partial b}, and we must evaluate the derivatives of M at (x, a-b+1, 2-b) rather than at (x,a,b). In the limit, of course, these are both (x,a,1).
 
pasmith said:
You haven't checked that -M(x,a,1) \ln x - 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial b} actually solves the ODE; it doesn't. If L(y) = xy&#039;&#039; + (b-x)y&#039; - ay then differentiating partially with respect to b results in \frac{\partial}{\partial b}L(y) = L\left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial b}\right) + y&#039; and you can also show that L(y \ln x) = L(y) \ln x + 2y&#039; - y + \frac{(b-1)y}{x}. Since L(M) = 0 for all a and b you can see that L\left(M \ln x + 3 \frac{\partial M}{\partial b}\right) = -M&#039; - M when b = 1.

The problem is that you haven't calculated the derivative of M(x,a-b+1, 2-b) with respect to b correctly. By \frac{\partial M}{\partial b} we mean the derivative of M(x,a,b) with respect to b with x and a constant. But you are looking at f(x,a,b) = M(x, g(a,b),h(a,b)) with g(a,b) = a-b+1 and h(a,b) = 2 - b rather than M(x,a,b). The multivariate chain rule then gives \frac{\partial f}{\partial b} = -\frac{\partial M}{\partial a} - \frac{\partial M}{\partial b}, and we must evaluate the derivatives of M at (x, a-b+1, 2-b) rather than at (x,a,b). In the limit, of course, these are both (x,a,1).
Thanks @pasmith ! I found the error according to your correction, could you please check now? Especially if the argument on linear independence of the two solutions is valid?Expand the limit with l'Hopital's rule:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{{}={}}\lim_{b\to 1}\frac{y_2-y_1}{b-1} \\
&= \biggl[\frac{\partial}{\partial b}(x^{1-b}M(x,a-b+1,2-b) - M(x,a,b))\biggr]_{b=1} \\
&= \biggl[-x^{1-b}\ln x M(x,a-b+1,2-b) + x^{1-b}\frac{\partial M(x,a-b+1,2-b)}{\partial b} - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\
&= -M(x,a,1)\ln x + \biggl[\frac{\partial M(x,a-b+1,2-b)}{\partial b} - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\
&= -M(x,a,1)\ln x + \biggl[-\frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial a} -\frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b} - \frac{\partial M(x,a,b)}{\partial b}\biggr]_{b=1} \\
&= -M(x,a,1)\ln x - \frac{\partial M}{\partial a}(x,a,1) - 2\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1) \\
\end{aligned}
$$
Consider the differential operator ##L(y) = xy'' + (b-x)y' -ay##, then consider ##L(y\ln x)##, ##\frac{\partial}{\partial b}L(y)## and ##\frac{\partial}{\partial a}L(y)##:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{{}={}} L(y\ln x) \\
&= x(y\ln x)'' + (b-x)(y\ln x)' - a(y\ln x) \\
&= xy''\ln x +2y' - y\frac{1}{x} + (b-x)y' \ln x + (b-x)y\frac{1}{x} - ay\ln x \\
&= \ln x(xy'' + (b-x)y' -ay) + 2y' -y + (b-1)y\frac{1}{x} \\
&= \ln x L(y) + 2y' -y + (b-1)y\frac{1}{x} \\
\end{aligned}
$$

$$
\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{{}={}} \frac{\partial}{\partial b}L(y) \\
&= \frac{\partial}{\partial b}(xy'' + (b-x)y' - ay) \\
&= x\frac{\partial }{\partial b}y'' + y' +(b-x)\frac{\partial}{\partial b}y' - a\frac{\partial}{\partial b}y \\
&= x(\frac{\partial y}{\partial b})'' + (b-x) (\frac{\partial y}{\partial b})' - a\frac{\partial y}{\partial b} + y' \\
&= L(\frac{\partial y}{\partial b}) + y'
\end{aligned}
$$

$$
\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{{}={}} \frac{\partial}{\partial a}L(y) \\
&= \frac{\partial}{\partial a}(xy'' + (b-x)y' - ay) \\
&= x\frac{\partial }{\partial a}y'' +(b-x)\frac{\partial}{\partial b}y' - y -a\frac{\partial}{\partial a}y \\
&= x(\frac{\partial y}{\partial a})'' + (b-x) (\frac{\partial y}{\partial a})' - a\frac{\partial y}{\partial a} -y \\
&= L(\frac{\partial y}{\partial a}) - y
\end{aligned}
$$
Check ##y_2 = -M(x,a,1)\ln x - \frac{\partial M}{\partial a}(x,a,1) - 2\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1)## is indeed a solution to the differential equation:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{{}={}} L(y_2) \\
&= -L(M \ln x) - L(\frac{\partial M}{\partial a}) - 2L(\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}) \\
&= -\ln xL(M) - 2M' +M -\frac{\partial}{\partial b}L(M) - M -2\frac{\partial}{\partial a}L(M) + 2M' \\
&= 0
\end{aligned}
$$
Check the Wronskian of ##y_1 = M(x,a,1)## and ##y_2 = -M(x,a,1)\ln x - \frac{\partial M}{\partial a}(x,a,1) - 2\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}(x,a,1)##:
$$
\begin{aligned}
&\phantom{{}={}} y_1y_2'-y_2y_1' \\
&= M(-M'\ln x - M\frac{1}{x} - (\frac{\partial M}{\partial a})' -2(\frac{\partial M}{\partial b})') - M'(-M\ln x -\frac{\partial M}{\partial a} -2\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}) \\
&= -M^2 \frac{1}{x} -M(\frac{\partial M}{\partial a})' + M'\frac{\partial M}{\partial a} -2M(\frac{\partial M}{\partial a})' + 2M'\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}
\end{aligned}
$$
When ##x \to 0##, the Wronskian diverges because of the ##\frac{1}{x}## term, so it's non-zero. Hence ##y_1, y_2## are independent.
 
Last edited:

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
643
  • · Replies 52 ·
2
Replies
52
Views
8K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K