You are not logged in.
Post a reply
Topic review (newest first)
- Fistfiz
- 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 
- scientia
- 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 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wronskian# … dependence for an example.
- Fistfiz
- 2013-01-13 01:06:52
Of course 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?
- scientia
- 2013-01-12 23:35:41
Yes, if you can show that for some then for all .
- Fistfiz
- 2013-01-12 21:06:44
Hi guys,
I'm studying some demonstrations about 2nd order differential equations of the form:
y''+2by'+ay=f(t)
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 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel'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??