Hello out there.(adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({});

I'm working on a proof by induction of the Wronskian and need a little boost to get going.

So, here goes:

If [tex]y_1,...,y_n \in C^n[a,b][/tex], then their Wronskian is:

[tex]Wr(y_1,...,y_n)=det\left(\begin{array}{ccc}y_1&\cdots&y_n\\y_1\prime&\cdots&y_n\prime\\\vdots&\vdots&\vdots\\y_1^{(n-1)}&\cdots&y_n^{(n-1)}\end{array}\right)[/tex]

In general, a set of functions will be linearly independent IFF the Wronskian is not identically zero.

Prove this for n = 2, that is [tex]f(x), g(x)[/tex] are independent IFF

[tex]\left\vert\begin{array}{cc}f(x)&g(x)\\f^\prime(x)&g^\prime(x)\end{array}\right\vert[/tex] is not identically zero.

Okay, I think I understand how to prove this in one direction. That is, assuming the [tex]Wr(f,g) \neq 0[/tex] and showing that [tex]f(x), g(x)[/tex] are independent.

But I'm a little stuck in the assumptions for proving the other direction.

This is what I have for the proof in one direction:

Assume [tex]Wr(f(x),g(x)) \neq 0[/tex].

Then there exists some [tex]x_o[/tex] such that [tex]Wr(f(x_o),g(x_o)) \neq 0[/tex].

Assume:

[tex]c_1 f(x) + c_2 g(x) \equiv 0[/tex]

[tex]c_1 f^\prime(x) + c_2 g^\prime(x) \equiv 0[/tex]

then

[tex]c_1 f(x_o) + c_2 g(x_o) = 0[/tex]

[tex]c_1 f^\prime(x_o) + c_2 g^\prime(x_o) = 0[/tex]

We have two equations in the unknowns [tex]c_1[/tex] and [tex] c_2[/tex].

[tex]\left \vert \begin{array}{cc}f(x_o) & g(x_o) \\ f^ \prime (x_o) & g ^\prime (x_o) \end{array} \right \vert \neq 0 [/tex]

Therefore there are unique solutions.

One such solution is: [tex]c_1 = c_2 = 0[/tex]

This turns out to be the only solution.

Therefore [tex]f(x)[/tex] and [tex]g(x)[/tex] are independent.

I'm sure my wording is a little off. But I'm still confused about how I would prove it the other way.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Best,

dogma

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**

Join Physics Forums Today!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

# Wronskian Proof

Loading...

Similar Threads for Wronskian Proof |
---|

A Is the proof of these results correct? |

I Doubt about proof on self-adjoint operators. |

I Addition of exponents proof in group theory |

B Help understanding a proof |

**Physics Forums | Science Articles, Homework Help, Discussion**