1. Not finding help here? Sign up for a free 30min tutor trial with Chegg Tutors
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Wronskian Proof

  1. May 4, 2005 #1
    Hello out there.

    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:


    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].

    [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]

    [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.

  2. jcsd
  3. May 4, 2005 #2


    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    Looks good to me.

    And the other way is easier!

    Suppose f and g are NOT independent. Then there exist a, b such that af(x)+ bg(x)= 0 for all x. If b is not 0, then g(x)= (a/b)f(x) and the Wronskian if f(x)g'(x)- f'(x)g(x)= f(x)(b/a)f'(x)- f'(x)(b/a)f(x)= (b/a)(f(x)f'(x)- f'(x)f(x))= 0 for all x.

    (If b is 0, then f(x) must be identically 0 so the Wronskian is 0(g'(x))- 0(g(x))= 0.)
  4. May 5, 2005 #3
    Thanks, Mr. Ivy!

    That makes things a lot clearer! I can see the light.

  5. May 5, 2005 #4
    Ok, so Ivy proved the way you wanted : (Linearly dependent)->Wr(x)=0 forall x

    The problem is that : this is equivalent to "exists t Wr(t)!=0->Lin independent" which is what dogma proved.

    Since you said it's IFF, then remains to prove :

    "Lin indep->exists t Wr(t)!=0" which is equivalent to "W(x)=0 \forall x->lin dep"

    Since W(x)=0=f(x)g'(x)-f'(x)g(x).

    If f(x)!=0 and g(x)!=0 for a certain domain of x...then clearly f(x)=Cg(x) from the diff. equ...(f'/f)=(g'/g)...but only on this domain

    If exist a domain with f(y)=0, f'(y)=0 then g(x) can be anything

    Hence the theorem is only in one direction since you can find f,g lin indep such that Wr(f,g)=0 forall x

    For counterexample :

    [tex] f(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} 0 & |x|\leq 1\\ (x+1)^2(x-1)^2 & else\end{array}\right.[/tex]
    [tex] g(x)=(x-1)^2(x+1)^2 [/tex]

    Then cleary f,g are in C^1(R) :

    [tex] f'(x)=\left\{\begin{array}{cc} 0 & |x|\leq 1 \\4x(x-1)(x+1) & |x|\geq 1\end{array}\right.[/tex]

    You see that f'(\pm 1+)=0=f'(\pm 1-) so f'(x) is continuous on R.

    If |x|<1 then W=0 clearly since f=0
    if |x|>1 then W=0 clearly since f,g are dep on |x|>1

    However f and g are lin indep on R, since if f-g=0 on |x|>1 then f-g!=0 in [-1;1]
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?