anonymous
  • anonymous
I apologize if my question is not super specific. I just watched lecture 13 which is on finding particular solutions to inhomogeneous equations. In the video he mentions functions of importance, which were e^ax, sin(wx), cos(wx), e^(ax)sin(wx), e^(ax)(cos(wx)). In all of these cases, as far as I understand, he rewrote them in the form e^(a+iw). I did not in the lecture see any cases where you have something like t*e^t+4. I am not sure how I would get it in that e to the whatever form or even if it is possible. Is the technique even valid in that case?
Differential Equations
schrodinger
  • schrodinger
I got my questions answered at brainly.com in under 10 minutes. Go to brainly.com now for free help!
At vero eos et accusamus et iusto odio dignissimos ducimus qui blanditiis praesentium voluptatum deleniti atque corrupti quos dolores et quas molestias excepturi sint occaecati cupiditate non provident, similique sunt in culpa qui officia deserunt mollitia animi, id est laborum et dolorum fuga. Et harum quidem rerum facilis est et expedita distinctio. Nam libero tempore, cum soluta nobis est eligendi optio cumque nihil impedit quo minus id quod maxime placeat facere possimus, omnis voluptas assumenda est, omnis dolor repellendus. Itaque earum rerum hic tenetur a sapiente delectus, ut aut reiciendis voluptatibus maiores alias consequatur aut perferendis doloribus asperiores repellat.

Get this expert

answer on brainly

SEE EXPERT ANSWER

Get your free account and access expert answers to this
and thousands of other questions

anonymous
  • anonymous
I realized I'm not qualified to make a proper explanation of a technique.. :d
anonymous
  • anonymous
A general thought is to apply the laws of logarithms though.
anonymous
  • anonymous
e^(ln(t))*e^(t)+4

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.

More answers

anonymous
  • anonymous
This means that t>0 though; so it might falsify the solutions in the end. If you're supposed to use imaginary stuff I got no clue as to how they apply in combination with exponential functions and their inverses.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Okay, so does the constant part mess up the e^(at) or is it okay
anonymous
  • anonymous
I'm not sure I follow what you mean by mess up the e^(at) :D
anonymous
  • anonymous
sorry. In the lecture he said that you can rewrite your f(x) as e^((a+iw)x). When I mentioned a I meant the complex factor and the 't' was the x. So I was wondering if the f(x) portion was okay being something like e^(a+iw)x + g, where g is a constant.
anonymous
  • anonymous
I stand by what I said in the first comment; I'm not qualified enough to say something. Hehe.
anonymous
  • anonymous
Thanks. I wouldn't have thought of the log rules thing.

Looking for something else?

Not the answer you are looking for? Search for more explanations.