Solving a Boundary Value Problem: Proving u(x) < 0

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around a boundary value problem (BVP) of the form u" + f(x)u = g(x) with boundary conditions u(0) = u(1) = 0, where f(x) and g(x) are positive functions. Participants explore the conjecture that u(x) < 0 in the domain 0 < x < 1 and discuss various approaches to proving this assertion.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant suspects that u(x) < 0 and attempts to prove this by contradiction, but struggles to deduce necessary conditions from their assumptions.
  • Another participant suggests using comparison theorems from the theory of elliptic PDEs to approach the problem.
  • A participant inquires about which differential equation to compare their equation to, expressing a preference for f(x) to be a monotonic increasing function.
  • A detailed explanation is provided involving a bounded operator and the use of the Schauder fixed point theorem to establish the existence of a solution under certain conditions.
  • Clarifications are made regarding the conditions required for the operator mapping and the implications of the assumptions on the functions involved.
  • Participants discuss the implications of their findings in relation to specific examples of boundary value problems.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the proof of the conjecture that u(x) < 0. Multiple competing views and approaches remain, with some participants refining their arguments and correcting earlier statements.

Contextual Notes

Participants note that the assumptions regarding the positivity of f(x) and g(x) and the nature of the functions involved are critical to the discussion, but these assumptions are not universally agreed upon or fully resolved.

matematikawan
Messages
336
Reaction score
0
I have a BVP of the form u" + f(x)u = g(x) , u(0)=u(1)= 0
where f(x) and g(x) are positive functions.
I suspect that u(x) < 0 in the domain 0 < x < 1. How do I go proving this.

I have try proving by contradiction. Assuming first u > 0 but I can't deduce that u" > 0 which contradict that u has a maximum in the domain. Or because my conjecture is wrong :cry:
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In the theory of elliptic PDE there are comparison theorems, you can try such a type argument here. Perhaps I describe details later
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: matematikawan
Thanks. Interesting suggestion wrobel. So to which DE should I compare my equation ?
Although I would prefer f(x) and g(x) to be general, I would still be content if f(x) is a monotonic increasing function since I'll be solving later on a specific DE with f(x) known.
 
Well. First consider a boundary value problem
$$-u''(x)=h(x)\in C[0,1],\quad u(0)=u(1)=0.$$ (We can replace the spaces ##C^k[0,1]## with the Sobolev or Holder spaces , they are also suitable. Actually I will reason very rough , it is only to illustrate the general idea. ) Solving this problem we obtain a bounded operator ##P:C[0,1]\to C^2[0,1]## defined by the formula
$$u(x)=Ph=x\int_0^1d\xi\int_0^\xi h(s)ds-\int_0^xd\xi\int_0^\xi h(s)ds.$$
It is easy to see that if ##h\ge 0## then ##Ph\ge 0##.

In your case the equation is as follows $$-u''=f(x)u-g(x),\quad f,g>0.\qquad (*)$$ Assume that ##f,g\in C[0,1]## then introduce constants
##F=\max_{x\in[0,1]}f(x),\quad G=\max_{x\in[0,1]}g(x).##
Assume that the constants ##F,G## are such that the problem $$-U''=F U-G,\quad U(0)=U(1)=0$$
has a solution ##U(x)<0,\quad x\in(0,1)##. Then the problem (*) has a solution ##\tilde u(x)## such that ##U\le \tilde u\le 0##. Indeed,
consider an operator $$\mathcal F(u)=P(f(x)u-g(x)).$$
This operator takes the set
$$W=\{u\in C[0,1]\mid U\le u\le 0\}$$ to itself. Moreover, The operator ##\mathcal F## is a compact operator in ##W## with respect to ##C[0,1]## topology. By the Schauder fixed point theorem we get a fixed point of the operator ##\mathcal F##. This fixed point is the solution ##\tilde u##.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: matematikawan
Wow! What a solution. Thank you very much Wrobel.
I need some time to properly understand the solution. Hope you don't mind if I ask again in case I do have problem understanding the argument.
:smile:
 
Sorry to come back again to this thread.
If I understand correctly, the mapping \mathcal F : W \rightarrow W where W=\{u\in C[0,1]\mid U\le u\le 0\} required the statement
if h\le 0 then Ph=x\int_0^1d\xi\int_0^\xi h(s)ds-\int_0^xd\xi\int_0^\xi h(s)ds \le 0 .

Also in the equation
-U&#039;&#039;=F U-G,\quad U(0)=U(1)=0,
G=\min_{x\in[0,1]}g(x) instead of maximum value.
 
from this:
wrobel said:
It is easy to see that if h≥0h\ge 0 then Ph≥0Ph\ge 0.
it follows that if ##v\le V## then ##Pv\le PV## and particularly
matematikawan said:
the mapping F:W→W\mathcal F : W \rightarrow W where W={u∈C[0,1]∣U≤u≤0} W=\{u\in C[0,1]\mid U\le u\le 0\} required the statement
if h≤0h\le 0 then Ph=x∫10dξ∫ξ0h(s)ds−∫x0dξ∫ξ0h(s)ds≤0. Ph=x\int_0^1d\xi\int_0^\xi h(s)ds-\int_0^xd\xi\int_0^\xi h(s)ds \le 0 .

matematikawan said:
Also in the equation
−U′′=FU−G,U(0)=U(1)=0, -U''=F U-G,\quad U(0)=U(1)=0,
G=minx∈[0,1]g(x)G=\min_{x\in[0,1]}g(x) instead of maximum value.
O, for me that is a hardest point in whole the argument, I every time confuse in it:)
taking into account that ##f,F>0## we see that if ##0\ge u\ge U## then ## f(x)u-g(x)\ge FU-g(x)## that is clear. Then it must be ## FU-g(x)\ge FU-G ## so that ##-g\ge- G,\quad g\le G##. It seems everything has been written ok
 
Last edited:
You are right Wrobel. I overlooked that U is negative (the assumption). Sorry.
The result now is consistent with an example that I have.
u" + 4u = x^2 , u(0)=u(1)=0
Solution: u(x) = (2x^2 + sin(1-2x)/sin(1) - 1)/8

Lower bound solution F=4, G=1
U" + 4U = 1 , U(0)=U(1)=0
Solution: U(x)=-sin(1-x)sin(x)/2cos(1)

:smile:
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K