Why Does This Differential Equation Epidemic Model Stump Me?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Kudaros
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Diff eq Model
Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion revolves around a differential equation related to an epidemic model, specifically the equation dy/dt = k(P-y)*y. The original poster expresses difficulty in finding a particular solution given the initial condition y(0)=t, and they are exploring the implications of the equation's structure.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Mathematical reasoning, Assumption checking

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to solve the differential equation using separation of variables and partial fractions but encounters issues during integration. They question the behavior of the terms after integration and express confusion about isolating the variable Y.
  • Some participants suggest trusting personal mathematical skills over computational tools and discuss the implications of factoring during integration.
  • Others raise questions about the logical constraints of the model, such as ensuring that the number of infected persons does not exceed the total population, and inquire about alternative methods for solving the equation without isolating Y.
  • There is also a suggestion to consider assumptions about the parameter P to simplify the problem.

Discussion Status

The discussion is ongoing, with participants providing insights and alternative perspectives on the integration process and the constraints of the epidemic model. There is no explicit consensus, but various approaches and considerations are being explored.

Contextual Notes

Participants are working within the constraints of a homework assignment, which may limit the methods they can use. The original poster has expressed frustration over the complexity of isolating the variable Y and the implications of the initial condition.

Kudaros
Messages
18
Reaction score
0
I have a logistic issue with differential equations. I have spent four hours working on this problem and it is way past the point of ridiculous.

If anyone can help out that would be great.

It begins like this.

dy/dt = k(P-y)*y. It is an epidemic model, where k is a positive constant relating the rate of infection. P is total population involved. An initial condition of y(0)=t is given. I am to find this particular solution.

The y is multiplied. Strange that it isn't shown as ky(p-y) but perhaps its a hint that I am not getting.

Anyway, I am treating this as a separable equation as that is the tool we are given (the method).

I have tried numerous approaches and have gotten the farthest with this one.

dy/(y(p-y)= kdt

Partial fractions on the left side where A and B are both = to 1/p.

1/py + 1/(p(p-y)) dy = kdt

Then integrate both sides.

ln(y)/p - ln(p-y)/p = kt + c.

Here is where the problem begins (unless I screwed up earlier). A CAS gives me -ln(y-p) (second term left side) . Can anyone explain this? I integrated by U substitution. Why would the variable and constant be switched?

I continued on assuming the CAS was correct and now I cannot isolate Y variable. I have never had this trouble before with math but hey I guess that's the way it goes.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
trust your math skills, not mathematica! (or whatever program you're using). the difference arises if you factor a negative one out before integrating. thus, you are then integrating - 1/p int (1/y-p) using u substitution now requires no extra negative for du. make sense?
 
Remember that:
[tex]\int\frac{dx}{x}=\ln(|x|)+C[/itex][/tex]
 
p-y also makes logical sense, as y is the number of infected persons and cannot be greater than p, ensuring a nonnegative number.

Continuing along the problem however, it seems I cannot isolate the variable Y due to the term p-y. I have attempted numerous approaches finding that same problem. Is there another way to solve differential equations, in general, using the initial condition but without isolating Y?

More specific to this problem, are there any assumptions that can be made about p to eliminate it all together? (a longshot I realize.)

Thanks again!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 16 ·
Replies
16
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 18 ·
Replies
18
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
3K