Solve second order linear differential equation

Join the discussion
Ask a follow-up here, or get your own question answered by working scientists, mathematicians and engineers — people, not an autocomplete.
Real named experts · corrections over time · the nuance an AI answer skips
7 replies · 3K views
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
[tex]y=e^{z(x)}[/tex] to see differential equation of z, could you check/correct
[tex]y=Ce^{\frac{a}{b}x}[/tex]
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
[tex]y=e^{z(x)}[/tex] to see differential equation of z, could you check/correct
[tex]y=Ce^{\frac{a}{b}x}[/tex]
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
[tex]c_{m+1}=\frac{a+m}{(m+1)(b+m)}c_m[/tex]
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 [itex]y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_nx^{n+r}[/itex] with [itex]c_0 \neq 0[/itex] I obtained the indicial equation [itex]r(r - 1 + b) = 0[/itex] and the recurrence relation [tex] c_{n+1} = \frac{n + r + a}{(n + r + 1)(n + r + b)}c_n[/tex] which are consistent with your result, althouh I would have used the property of the Gamma function that [itex]\Gamma(z + 1) = z \Gamma(z)[/itex] 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 [itex]r = 1 - b[/itex] 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:

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

[itex]y_1[/itex] and [itex](y_2 - y_1)/(b-1)[/itex] are linearly independent for any [itex]b \neq 1[/itex]; for [itex]b = 1[/itex] you can use l'Hopital's rule to calculate [tex] \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)}[/tex] and show that the result is a solution of the ODE which is linearly independent of [itex]M(x,a,1)[/itex].
 
Last edited:
  • Informative
Likes   Reactions: anuttarasammyak
pasmith said:
Applying Frobenius' Method and setting [itex]y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty c_nx^{n+r}[/itex] with [itex]c_0 \neq 0[/itex] I obtained the indicial equation [itex]r(r - 1 + b) = 0[/itex] and the recurrence relation [tex] c_{n+1} = \frac{n + r + a}{(n + r + 1)(n + r + b)}c_n[/tex] which are consistent with your result, althouh I would have used the property of the Gamma function that [itex]\Gamma(z + 1) = z \Gamma(z)[/itex] 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 [itex]r = 1 - b[/itex] solution.)
[itex]y_1[/itex] and [itex](y_2 - y_1)/(b-1)[/itex] are linearly independent for any [itex]b \neq 1[/itex]; for [itex]b = 1[/itex] you can use l'Hopital's rule to calculate [tex] \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)}[/tex] and show that the result is a solution of the ODE which is linearly independent of [itex]M(x,a,1)[/itex].
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 [itex]-M(x,a,1) \ln x - 3\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}[/itex] actually solves the ODE; it doesn't. If [itex]L(y) = xy'' + (b-x)y' - ay[/itex] then differentiating partially with respect to [itex]b[/itex] results in [tex]\frac{\partial}{\partial b}L(y) = L\left(\frac{\partial y}{\partial b}\right) + y'[/tex] and you can also show that [tex]L(y \ln x) = L(y) \ln x + 2y' - y + \frac{(b-1)y}{x}.[/tex] Since [itex]L(M) = 0[/itex] for all [itex]a[/itex] and [itex]b[/itex] you can see that [tex]L\left(M \ln x + 3 \frac{\partial M}{\partial b}\right) = -M' - M[/tex] when [itex]b = 1[/itex].

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

The problem is that you haven't calculated the derivative of [itex]M(x,a-b+1, 2-b)[/itex] with respect to [itex]b[/itex] correctly. By [itex]\frac{\partial M}{\partial b}[/itex] we mean the derivative of [itex]M(x,a,b)[/itex] with respect to [itex]b[/itex] with [itex]x[/itex] and [itex]a[/itex] constant. But you are looking at [itex]f(x,a,b) = M(x, g(a,b),h(a,b))[/itex] with [itex]g(a,b) = a-b+1[/itex] and [itex]h(a,b) = 2 - b[/itex] rather than [itex]M(x,a,b)[/itex]. The multivariate chain rule then gives [tex]\frac{\partial f}{\partial b} = -\frac{\partial M}{\partial a} - \frac{\partial M}{\partial b},[/tex] and we must evaluate the derivatives of [itex]M[/itex] at [itex](x, a-b+1, 2-b)[/itex] rather than at [itex](x,a,b)[/itex]. In the limit, of course, these are both [itex](x,a,1)[/itex].
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: