- anonymous

Differential Equation:
If one fundamental solution of (t^2)y''-(3t)y'+3y=0 is y_1(t) = t, what is another fundamental solution y_2(t) satisfying y_2(1)=1 and y'_2(1)=3. (Using the definition of the Wronskian)

- jamiebookeater

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

\[t^2y'' - 3ty' + 3y = 0 \]
\[y _{1}(t) = t, y _{2}(1)=1, y'_{2}(1)=3. \]
Find\[y _{2}(t)\]

- amistre64

do you know what a wronskian is?

- anonymous

wronksian, w(y_1,y_2) = y1y2' - y2y1'

Looking for something else?

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

## More answers

- anonymous

I was thinking that y = C1t + C2e^(RT)

- amistre64

or are you at the guessing trial and error stage?

- anonymous

I'm trying to figure out the approach. So yes, im at the trial and error

- anonymous

i tried to do t^2R^2 -3tR +3 = 0, and find R in terms of T.

- anonymous

using -b+- sqrt(b^2-4ac) / 2a gives me sqrt(-3t^2) so that did not work as planned.

- amistre64

let y2 = At, were A is a function of t comes to mind ... but i cant really recall the trial and error stuff

- anonymous

what if y2 is a complex function.

- amistre64

y2 = At
y2' = A + A't , let A't = 0
y2'' = A'
want sure if you were working with complexes

- amistre64

variation of parameters is what im thinking of

- anonymous

I was working it in terms of ty2' - y2 and i know this have to be equal of a specific function..

- anonymous

or result which is not equal to zero

- amistre64

t^2 A'
- 3At -3A't
+ 3At
------------
0 = t^2 A'
if A' = 0, so let A be a constant maybe?

- amistre64

y2 = k
y1 = t
y = y1+y2
y = ct + k

- amistre64

any thoughts?

- anonymous

yes...the last method i thought of.

- amistre64

i cant say im familiar with you last method so im not able to comment on it

- anonymous

so y1 = t and y2 = e^(RT) ?

- anonymous

I'm looking up second order homogeneous diff eQ. Actually, we did not cover variation of parameters.

- amistre64

t^2 r^2 e^(rt)
- 3t r e^(rt)
+ 3 e^(rt)
-------------
0 = e^(rt) (t^2 r^2 -3tr +3)

- anonymous

this is my approach here....along with Wronskian...
http://tutorial.math.lamar.edu/Classes/DE/RealRoots.aspx

- amistre64

tr = (3 +- sqrt(-3))/2
r = (3 +- sqrt(-3))/2t

- anonymous

I found something.

- amistre64

my approach fails the conditions for y2(1) and y2'(1)

- anonymous

##### 1 Attachment

- anonymous

I think i got it.

##### 1 Attachment

- amistre64

does your solution work back inthe setup?

- anonymous

I used Abel's theorem and based on the equation, the W(y1,y2) = C3/t&+^3 , C3 was used a variable since integrating y2 again will bring forth another variable which is C2 and since I was given y2 and y2' initial condition i used it to substitute and find c2 and c3.
I have to try and work backwards.

- anonymous

it does not :(
the w(y1,y2) = 6/t^6 - 4/t
it should have been 2/t^3

- amistre64

it was a heck of a show tho :)

- amistre64

y2 = t^3 .... try to work towards that

- amistre64

3t^3
-3t(3t^2)
t^2 6t
3t^3 -9t^3 +6t^3 = 0

- anonymous

I attached the problem just as it is.
By the way, how did you deduce y2 to be t^3?

##### 1 Attachment

- amistre64

the wolf ... lol

- amistre64

what is our def of the wronskian?

- anonymous

|dw:1443482195702:dw|
Must not equal zero for it to have fundamental solution or be linearly independent.

- amistre64

t^2 n(n-1) t^{n-2} -3t n t^{n-1} +3 t^n = 0
n(n-1) t^{n} -3n t^{n} +3 t^{n} = 0
n(n-1) -3n +3 = 0
n^2 -4n +3 = 0
(n-1)(n-3) = 0

- amistre64

ty' - y not= 0
not sure how using the definition helps us ...
as long as y'/y not equal 1/t we are good i spose

- anonymous

we have $$t^2y''-3ty'+3y=0\\\implies y''-\frac3ty'+\frac3{t^2}=0$$
Abel's theorem tells us that for fundamental solutions \(y_1,y_2\) to our linear differential equation the Wronskian is a constant multiple of \(e^{-\int -3/t\, dt}=e^{3\ln t}=t^3\), so we have $$\left|\begin{matrix}y_1&y_2\\y_1'&y_2'\end{matrix}\right|=C_1t^3\\y_1y_2'-y_1'y_2=C_1t^3$$we're told that \(y_1=t\) and \(y_1'=1\) so $$ty_2'-y_2=C_1t^3\\y_2'-\frac1ty_2=C_1t^2$$ so let's solve this first-order ODE using an integrating factor, \(\mu=e^{-\int\frac1t\, dt}=e^{-\ln t}=\frac1t\) giving us $$\frac1ty_2'-\frac1{t^2}y_2=C_1t\\\left(\frac1ty_2\right)'=C_1t\\\implies \frac1t y_2=\frac{C_1}2t^2+C_2\\\implies y_2(t)=\frac{C_1}2t^3+C_2t$$
now consider that we're told \(y_2(1)=1\) and \(y_2'(1)=3\) so: $$y_2'(t)=\frac32C_1t^2+C_2\\\\y_2(1)=1\implies \frac12C_1+C_2=1\\y_2'(1)=3\implies\frac32C_1+C_2=3\\\implies C_1=2,C_2=0$$giving us \(y_2(t)=t^3\)

- anonymous

now double check the Wronskian: $$\left|\begin{matrix}t&t^3\\1&3t^2\end{matrix}\right|=3t^3-t^3=2t^3$$ and \(C_1=2\) indeed

- anonymous

I see where I made my mistake. The photo i attached was the correct approach. I took the positive integral instead of the negative as such it became C/t^3 and not Ct^3...
Thanks a lot @oldrin.bataku
And this kids, is why people hate math....

- anonymous

be careful! and yeah @amistre64 if the Wronskian were zero (i.e. \(C_1=0\)) then they would be linearly *dependent*, whereas we want them to be linearly *independent* i.e. \(C_1\ne 0\), so that there is no nontrivial solution to the sytsem of linear equations you get the Wronskian from: $$c_1y_1+c_2y_2=0\\c_1y_1'+c_2y_2'=0\\\implies\begin{bmatrix}y_1&y_2\\y_1'&y_2'\end{bmatrix}\begin{bmatrix}c_1\\c_2\end{bmatrix}=\begin{bmatrix}0\\0\end{bmatrix}\\\implies \left|\begin{matrix}y_1(t)&y_2(t)\\y_1'(t)&y_2'(t)\end{matrix}\right|\ne0,\ \forall t\in(0,\infty)\text{ so that no nontrivial solution }c_1,c_2\text{ exists}\\\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\qquad\text{meaning }y_1,y_2\text{ are linearly independent}$$

- anonymous

and we're looking at \((0,\infty)\) because we were given conditions on \(t=1\) and our differential equation has a singular point at \(t=0\) so the solution on \((-\infty,0)\) is undetermined

- anonymous

also @amistre64 found another fundamental solution using the fact that it's a Cauchy-Euler equation, where we can use a clever change of variables \(x=\ln t\) to reduce it to a constant-coefficient problem and the characteristic equation is $$n(n-1)-3n+3=0$$

- anonymous

Very good explanation.

- anonymous

It's also possible you were expected to solve via reduction of order. using the known solution \(y_1=t\), you suppose \(y_2=y_1v=tv\) is a solution. You have
\[{y_2}'=v+tv'\quad\text{and}\quad{y_2}''=2v'+tv''\]
Substituting into the ODE, you have
\[t^2y''-3ty'+3y=t^2(2v'+tv'')-3t(v+tv')+3tv=0\]
Simplifying some, you get
\[t^3v''+(2t^2-t)v'=0\]
Substitute \(x=v'\):
\[t^3x'+(2t^2-t)x=t^2x'+(2t-1)x=0\]
which is linear and separable.

- anonymous

Thanks @SithsAndGiggles

Looking for something else?

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