Solve the differential equation: y′′y′+yy′+yy′′=0

Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion focuses on solving the differential equation y′′y′ + yy′ + yy′′ = 0 using the substitution y = e^{∫z(x)}. This substitution leads to a first-order differential equation, (z + 1)z' + z^3 + z^2 + z = 0. The user struggles to express z in terms of x after obtaining an implicit solution. The conversation highlights the complexity of finding an analytical solution and references WolframAlpha for potential solutions, indicating that simple solutions exist but a general expression may not be attainable.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of differential equations, specifically second-order and first-order types.
  • Familiarity with substitution methods in solving differential equations.
  • Knowledge of implicit functions and their properties.
  • Experience with computational tools like WolframAlpha for solving complex equations.
NEXT STEPS
  • Research methods for solving first-order differential equations, particularly using substitutions.
  • Explore the properties of implicit functions and techniques for finding their inverses.
  • Investigate the use of numerical methods for approximating solutions to complex differential equations.
  • Learn about the limitations of analytical solutions in differential equations and when to use computational tools.
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, students studying differential equations, and researchers looking for methods to solve complex mathematical problems will benefit from this discussion.

Baal Hadad
Messages
17
Reaction score
2
Homework Statement
Solve the following equation:
Relevant Equations
##y''y'+yy'+yy''=0##
I tried the substitution ##y=e^{\int z(x)}##,##z(x)## is an arbitrary function to be determined.

Substitute this to the original differential equation,and dividing ##y^2## yields ##(z+1)z'+z^3+z^2+z=0##,which is a first order differential equation.

Trying to solve this first order differential equation yields ##x= ln z -\frac { ln (z^2+z+1)}{2} +\frac {\arctan( {\frac {2z+1}{\sqrt{3}}})}{{\sqrt{3}}}##

Then I can't continue here.The expression seems implicit and I cannot get an expression of ##z## in terms of ##x##,that can be substituted back to ##y=e^{\int z(x)}##.Had I use the wrong substitution or any better subsitutions?

Thanks.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Are you sure you haven't forgotten to mention something? WolframAlpha gives a monster as solution, so I checked some simple solutions. Of course we have all constants ##y(x)\equiv c##, and ##y(x)=ae^{bx}## yields ##b=-\frac{1}{2}\pm i\frac{\sqrt{3}}{2}##. And these are the easy ones where all three terms are more or less equal. Using the symmetries of the equation gave me something like ##1=(1+u(x))(1+v(x))## with ##u(x)=\frac{y}{y''}\, , \,v(x)=\frac{y'}{y''}##. So without additional assumptions on ##y''## this seems quite complicated. This might be most obvious in the notation ##u+v+uv=0##, which equals a sum and a product, two very different objects.
 
fresh_42 said:
Are you sure you haven't forgotten to mention something?
Sorry,please tell me if there is anything that I should mention but I forgot.

So,do you mean that this equation cannot be solved analytically?

By the way,I tried this substitution from this :
Screenshot_20190816_003353.jpg
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot_20190816_003353.jpg
    Screenshot_20190816_003353.jpg
    37 KB · Views: 292
fresh_42 said:
It can with simple solutions as those I mentioned. I doubt there is an expression for all solutions.
Have a look: https://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=y"y'+yy'+yy"=0
Well,I also doubt that there exist any methods to produce such an expression as shown.
According to Wolfram Alpha ,I think actually the main part of the solution consist of the inverse function of the implicit expression above.Maybe my thought still has a little bit of use...
 
Baal Hadad said:
Well,I also doubt that there exist any methods to produce such an expression as shown.
According to Wolfram Alpha ,I think actually the main part of the solution consist of the inverse function of the implicit expression above.Maybe my thought still has a little bit of use...
Or can I integrate the inverse function,even I don't know it?
 

Similar threads

Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
1K
Replies
3
Views
2K
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K