Y1 = xe^(rx) and y2 = e^(rx): how y1 was discovered?

  • Context: Graduate 
  • Thread starter Thread starter gnardog777
  • Start date Start date
Click For Summary
SUMMARY

The discussion centers on the derivation of the second solution for second-order homogeneous ordinary differential equations (ODEs) with constant coefficients, specifically when the auxiliary equation yields a double root (b² - 4ac = 0). The solution y1 = xe^(rx) is derived using the reduction of order technique, where if one solution y0(x) is known, a new solution can be found by letting y(x) = y0(x)v(x). The process leads to the conclusion that v'' = 0, resulting in the general solution y(x) = C1xe^(rx) + C2e^(rx), where C1 and C2 are constants.

PREREQUISITES
  • Understanding of second-order homogeneous ordinary differential equations (ODEs)
  • Familiarity with the characteristic equation and its roots
  • Knowledge of the reduction of order technique in differential equations
  • Basic calculus, including integration and differentiation
NEXT STEPS
  • Study the derivation of solutions for second-order linear ODEs with constant coefficients
  • Learn about the Jordan canonical form and its applications in solving higher-order linear ODEs
  • Explore the method of undetermined coefficients for finding particular solutions to ODEs
  • Investigate complex series approaches to solving differential equations
USEFUL FOR

Mathematicians, engineering students, and anyone studying differential equations who seeks a deeper understanding of solution derivation techniques for second-order linear ODEs.

gnardog777
Messages
5
Reaction score
0
hey, can someone explain to me how mathematicians found out that for second order homogenous ODEs with constant coefficents, when for the auxiliary equation, b^2 - 4ac = 0, xe^(rx) is another general solution?

I've seen it proven, but I don't understand why

**EDIT:*** I just realized I may have phrased this in an awkward/weird way. In other words, how did they find out that it works? I mean, I know when you plug it into the regular equation, it works, but there must be something more to it (at least that's what I imagine, I could very well be wrong though).
 
Last edited:
Physics news on Phys.org
The derivation comes from using the technique for reducing the order of a differential equation if you know one solution.

I'm sure you know that if you know one solution, say [itex]x_0[/itex], to a polynomial equation, then dividing by [itex]x- x_0[/itex] gives an equation of degree one less to solve for the other roots. Similarly, if [itex]y_0(x)[/itex] is a solution to a linear differential equation, then letting [itex]y(x)= y_0(x)v(x)[/itex] gives a linear differential equation of order one less to solve for other, independent, solutions.

In this case, if r is a double root of the characteristic equation then the characteristic equation must have the form [itex](x- r)^2= x^2- 2rx+ r^2= 0[/itex] and that means that at least part of the equation must be of the form [itex]y''- 2ry'+ r^2y= 0[/itex]. If we let [itex]y(x)= v(x)e^{rx}[/itex] then [itex]y'= v'e^{rx}+ rve^{rx}[/itex] and [itex]y''= v''e^{rx}+ 2rv'e^{rx}+ ve^{rx}[/itex]. Putting that into the equation, [itex]y''- 2ry'+ r^2y= v''e^{rx}+ 2rv'e^{rx}+ ve^{rx}- 2rv'e^{rx}- 2r^2ve^{rx}+ r^2ve^{rx}[/itex][itex]= v''e^{rx}= 0[/itex].

The terms involving only v (and not v' and v'') cancel because, not differentiating v, we are treating it like a constant and, of course, since [itex]e^{rx}[/itex] satisfies the equation, so does any constant times [itex]e^{rx}[/itex]. And all terms involving v' cancel because r is a double root. So we have [itex]v''e^{rx}= 0[/itex] and, since [itex]e^{rx}[/itex] is never 0, we can divide by it to get [itex]v''= 0[/itex]. Integrating that once, [itex]v'= C_1[/itex], a constant, and, integrating again, [itex]v(x)= C_1x+ C_2[/itex]. That is [itex]y(x)= v(x)e^{rx}= C_1xe^{rx}+ C_2e^{rx}[/itex].

Of course, the "[itex]C_2e^{rx}[/itex]" we already had but now we have discovered that [itex]C_1xe^{rx}[/itex] is also a solution.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Some other leads, it might come from the very general complex series approach, or it might come from the jordan canonical form, a generalization of diagonalizing matrices. The result from jordan canonical form will be used more generally if your text treats higher order linear ODEs, and systems of ODEs. So your solution you are looking at is the special case in several different and more general methods.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 15 ·
Replies
15
Views
3K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
7K
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 21 ·
Replies
21
Views
7K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
3K