Sturm-Liouville Problem: conditions over the coefficients

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers on the assumptions regarding the coefficients in the Sturm-Liouville problem, specifically the continuity, boundedness, and real-valued nature of the functions p, q, and r. Participants explore the implications of these assumptions on the existence and behavior of solutions, as well as the potential for singularities in the context of boundary value problems.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions the necessity of assuming that p, q, and r are continuous, real-valued, and bounded, suggesting that complex values for p might be possible.
  • Another participant argues that discontinuities in p, q, or r could lead to difficulties in extending solutions across points of discontinuity, and emphasizes the importance of r(x) being non-zero to avoid singularities.
  • A different participant seeks clarification on why r(x) being zero at any point leads to singularities, referencing Lagrange's exponential factor.
  • One participant connects the assumptions to eigenfunction theory, stating that the leading coefficient being zero results in singularities and that real coefficients are necessary for defining the inner product and ensuring real eigenvalues and orthogonality of eigenfunctions.
  • Another participant suggests that using a complex inner product could potentially address issues related to non-real coefficients.
  • A participant reiterates the importance of coefficients being finite rather than strictly real-valued, discussing the implications of coefficients being zero in the context of differential equations.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity and implications of the assumptions regarding the coefficients in the Sturm-Liouville problem. There is no consensus on whether complex coefficients could be viable or on the specific reasons for requiring real-valued coefficients.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the potential for singularities when coefficients are not properly constrained, but the discussion does not resolve the underlying mathematical conditions or assumptions that lead to these issues.

libelec
Messages
173
Reaction score
0
For a Sturm-Liouville problem, as in:

[tex]\frac{d}{{dx}}\left[ {r(x)\frac{{dy}}{{dx}}} \right] + [\lambda p(x) + q(x)]y = 0[/tex]

I've read in several books that one assumes that p, q and r are continuous, real-valued and bounded in the interval I, r' is continuous, and p>0.

But I've never seen or understood the reason why we make this assumption. What's the difference? Can't p be complex-valued? Why can't q be unbounded?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
If any of p, q, or r are not continuous, you are going to have serious difficulties with extending solutions over a points of discontinuity. If r is not differentiable, then you are going to have difficulties with d/dx(r(x)dy/dx). As for "p> 0", I have not seen that. If r(x)= 0 anywhere on the given interval (and Sturm-Liouville problems are always boundary value problems defined on some interval) you will have a singularity. We must have [itex]r(x)\ne 0[/itex] which means, since it is continuous, it is of one sign. Since we can always multiply the entire equation by -1, we can assume that r(x)> 0, not p(x)> 0.

Perhaps you are confusing this with the equivalent form
[tex]\frac{d}{{dx}}\left[ {p(x)\frac{{dy}}{{dx}}} \right] + [q(x)+ \lambda r(x)]y = 0[/tex]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
OK, but why are we having a singularity if r(x) = 0 for some x in the boundary interval? Is it because of Lagrange's exponential factor's form, [tex]\mu (x) = e^{\int\limits_{x_0 }^x {\frac{{Q(s)}}{{P(s)}}ds} }[/tex] ?

And why do we ask this coefficients to be real-valued? Is it for practical reasons, like the DE being related to a real problem that doesn't need to be complex valued?

Thanks very much for the rest.
 
I think it is all tied up in the eigenfunction theory. If the leading coefficient is zero, you will have singularities as Halls has pointed out. The coefficient of lambda is the weight function in the definition of the inner product, so you want it positive. I haven't gone through it lately, but I believe that if the coefficients are not real you will have problems defining the inner product, having the eigenvalues be real, and getting orthogonality of the eigenfunctions.
 
But doesn't using the complex inner product for functions solve that problem?
 
libelec said:
OK, but why are we having a singularity if r(x) = 0 for some x in the boundary interval? Is it because of Lagrange's exponential factor's form, [tex]\mu (x) = e^{\int\limits_{x_0 }^x {\frac{{Q(s)}}{{P(s)}}ds} }[/tex] ?

And why do we ask this coefficients to be real-valued? Is it for practical reasons, like the DE being related to a real problem that doesn't need to be complex valued?

Thanks very much for the rest.
It's not so much a matter of being "real valued" as of being "finite"!

Any differential equation can be reduced, eventually, to "dX/dt= F(X,t)" where X may be a vector valued function. For example, the equation [itex]p(x,t)d^2x/dt^2+ q(x,t)dx/dt+ r(x,t)= 0[/itex] can be reduced by letting y= dx/dt so that [itex]p(x,t) dy/dt+ q(x,t)y+ r(x,t)= 0[/itex] which can be reduced to [itex]dX/dt= F(X,t)[/itex] with X= (x(t), y(t)) and F= (y, (-r(x,t)- q(x,t)y)/p(x,t)). If p(x,t) is ever 0, that "blows up".
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
5K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
10K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 45 ·
2
Replies
45
Views
10K
  • · Replies 13 ·
Replies
13
Views
4K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K