What is the general solution to Cauchy-Euler's equation?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter fluidistic
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on solving the Cauchy-Euler differential equation represented as 2rT' + r²T'' = 0. The proposed solution form T(r) = r^k led to k values of 0 and 1, resulting in a general solution T(r) = c₁/r + c₂. The participant initially questioned the inclusion of T(r) = c₃ ln(r) in the general solution, but later identified an algebraic error that clarified the misunderstanding. The final conclusion is that the general solution does not include the logarithmic term.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of Cauchy-Euler differential equations
  • Familiarity with solving homogeneous differential equations
  • Knowledge of algebraic manipulation and logarithmic functions
  • Experience with differential equation software tools like Wolfram Alpha
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of general solutions for Cauchy-Euler equations
  • Explore the role of logarithmic solutions in differential equations
  • Learn about initial conditions and their impact on determining constants in solutions
  • Practice solving various forms of differential equations using Wolfram Alpha
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, engineering students, and anyone involved in solving differential equations, particularly those focusing on Cauchy-Euler equations and their applications.

fluidistic
Gold Member
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
286
I had to solve the DE:
[tex]2rT'+r^2T''=0[/tex] where [itex]T(r)[/itex]. I noticed it's a Cauchy-Euler's equation so I proposed a solution of the form [itex]T(r)=r^k[/itex]. This gave me k=0 or k=1.
Thus, I thought, the general solution to that homogeneous DE is under the form [itex]T(r)=\frac{c_1}{r}+c_2[/itex]. Wolfram alpha also agrees on this.
However I noticed that [itex]T(r)=c_3 \ln r[/itex] (or even [itex]c_3 \ln r + c_4[/itex]) also satisfies the DE!
I don't understand:
1)How is that possible?!
2)What is the general way to find such a solution?
3)Isn't the general solution then under the form [itex]T(r)=\frac{c_1}{r}+c_2+ c_3 \ln r[/itex]. I guess not, because some initial conditions would not be enough to solve for the 3 constants?
I don't understand what's going on. Any help is appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I put ln(r) into that equation and come up with
[tex]\frac{2r}{r} -\frac{r^2}{r^2} = 1 \neq 0[/tex]
 
LeonhardEuler said:
I put ln(r) into that equation and come up with
[tex]\frac{2r}{r} -\frac{r^2}{r^2} = 1 \neq 0[/tex]

Whoops. :blushing:
Nevermind then... I made some algebra mistake.
Problem solved.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
4K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 36 ·
2
Replies
36
Views
6K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
0
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
4K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
4K