Understanding Frobenius Method & ODEs: When to Use Set 1 or Set 2

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter bishy
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Frobenius Method
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the Frobenius method for solving ordinary differential equations (ODEs), specifically focusing on the appropriate use of two different power series sets for substitution. Participants explore the conditions under which each set should be applied, addressing concepts related to regular and irregular singular points.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion regarding the appropriate use of two different power series sets for the y substitution in Frobenius' method, questioning when to use each set.
  • Another participant questions the validity of starting the series from 0 in the second set, noting that it leads to zero terms for the derivatives.
  • A third participant acknowledges the differences in the sets and mentions that both are used in their solutions manual, but they are unclear about the reasoning behind this.
  • A later reply asserts that neither of the proposed sets is correct for Frobenius' method, stating that a regular singular point requires a specific form of the series that includes a constant determined by the indicial equation.
  • Another participant agrees with the previous assertion, adding that both sets can be valid if the point is ordinary, but emphasizes the assumption regarding negative indices in set 2.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the correct application of the power series sets. There are competing views regarding the validity of each set and the conditions under which they should be used.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight potential limitations in understanding the application of the Frobenius method, particularly regarding the definitions of regular and irregular singular points and the implications of starting series from different indices.

bishy
Messages
13
Reaction score
0
I'm a little confused with ODEs. After two weeks of trying to figure out Frobenius I have finally realized that there seems to be two different power set used by all of my three books for the y substitution but I am unsure when to use either one. Here are the two sets that I'm talking about:

Set 1 from section 6.1

y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n x^n

y\prime = \sum_{n=1}^\infty n C_n x^{n-1}

y\prime\prime = \sum_{n=2}^\infty n(n-1) C_n x^{n-2}

set 2 from section 6.2

y = \sum_{n=0}^\infty n C_n x^{n-1}

y\prime = \sum_{n=0}^\infty n C_n x^{n-1}

y\prime\prime = \sum_{n=0}^\infty n(n-1) C_n x^{n-2}

I think I have come to understand that I should use set 1 if and only if all of the singular points are irregular and set 2 when I have at least one regular singular point. Is this correct? If not, when is it appropriate to use set 1 rather than set 2? Or is set 2 only designed to work with Frobenius' method while set 1 only works lacking a Taylor power series expansion?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
In your 2nd set, why are you starting the series from 0? for y' you would get 0 for n = 0 and for y'' you would get 0 for n = 0 and n = 1. It just seems like they are shifting indices around.
 
That's what I thought as well when I first realized that little difference within the DE books I am basing the sets on. Considering that they we're using this method to get something backed by primary source papers I stopped trying to pass it off as a typo within my books. Apparently with the solutions manual I have available to me, both sets are being used, when and why this is the case, I really have no idea. Hopefully somebody does.
 
Neither of those is correct for Frobenius' method.

If you have a regular singular point then Frobenius' method uses
\sum_{n=0}^\infty C_n x^{n+ c}
where c is determined from the indicial equation, essentially requiring that C0 not be 0. c in not necessarily positive or even an integer.

If you have an irregular singular point, there may not be a series solution at all.
 
I agree with HallsofIvy.

If x=0 is an ordinary point then either set 1 or set 2 is a valid expansion. However when using set 2 we must assume that Cn=0 if n is a negative integer (in case we want to replace the dummy index n).
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
925
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 11 ·
Replies
11
Views
4K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K