Math Is Fun Forum
  Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun.   Useful symbols: √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ π -




Not registered yet?

  • Index
  •  » Help Me !
  •  » Wronksian determinant in 2nd order linear DE

Post a reply

Go back

Write your message and submit
:) :| :( :D :o ;) :/ :P :lol: :mad: :rolleyes: :cool: | :dizzy :eek :kiss :roflol :rolleyes :shame :down :up :touched :sleep :wave :swear :tongue :what :faint :dunno

Go back

Topic review (newest first)

2013-01-14 01:06:45

Thank you, this remark:
"Peano (1889) observed that if the functions are analytic, then the vanishing of the Wronskian in an interval implies that they are linearly dependent."
opened my eyes eek

2013-01-13 01:39:21

I see. Well, if
are differentiable, then linear independence implies
for all
. If they are not both differentiable, then it is possible that they are linearly independent yet
. See … dependence for an example. smile

2013-01-13 01:06:52

Of course smile but what i meant was: can I avoid to include W(t0)!=0 for some t0 in my hypotesis? In other words, if I have two linearly independent solutions u and v, can I automatically say W(u,v)!=0 for all t?

2013-01-12 23:35:41

Yes, if you can show that
for some
for all

2013-01-12 21:06:44

Hi guys,
I'm studying some demonstrations about 2nd order differential equations of the form:
where a,b are constants.
Suppose that u,v are linearly independent solutions. Now, in several demonstrations, it's needed that the Wronksian determinant of u,v it's different from zero.
I see from Abel's identity ('s_identity) that if this is true for some t0 value, then it's true for all t. Provided this, can I always say that the Wronksian of u,v is always non-zero??

Board footer

Powered by FluxBB