3

Given the differential equation $\frac{dy}{dx}=3{y^\frac{2}{3}}$, the general solution is $\sqrt[3]{y}=x+C$. But, there are two solutions curves that pass through (2,0) namely, $\sqrt[3]{y}=x-2$ and $y=0$.

Why do we call $\sqrt[3]{y}=x+C$ a general solution? I thought "general solution" meant that it describes all solution curves, one for each value of $C$. But it clearly doesn't, as $y=0$ is a solution curve and it's not included.

I believe I need help defining a "general solution". This seems to be glossed over in the textbook I am reading.

AKP2002
  • 156
B flat
  • 792
  • 1
  • 6
  • 17

2 Answers2

2

The differential equation $\frac{dy}{dx}=3{y^\frac{2}{3}} \tag{i}$ is separable, that means you can seperate the variables by dividing $(i)$ by $\frac{y^\frac{2}{3}}{dx}$ but while doing so, you made a tacit assumption that $y^\frac{2}{3}\neq0$.

Now regarding $y$ as the dependent variable we consider the situation that occurs if $y^\frac{2}{3}=0$ i.e. $y=0$ and we notice that $y=0$ is indeed a solution of $(i)$. But this $y=0$ is not a member of one parameter family of solution you obtained (with that assumption) for $(i)$. Therefore, we conclude that it is a solution which was lost in the separation process.

Always remember while separating the variables to check if any solutions are lost in the process due to the assumption that any factor by which we divide is not zero.

As such your general solution would be $\sqrt[3]{y}=x+C$ or $y=0$ where C is an arbitrary constant.

$\mathbf{Note:}$ In elementary texts, this lost solution $y=0$ is often ignored.

  • Yes, I didn’t have a problem with the theory. It looks like my mistake was calling the first equation the general solution by itself. From your answer it looks like we call both of them combined with “or” the general solution. Somehow I didn’t get this distinction from my textbook. Thank you! – B flat Jul 19 '21 at 04:05
  • I see your note and ya I think that was part of my confusion. – B flat Jul 19 '21 at 04:06
  • 1
    This isn't right. There are many more (note: even differentiable) solutions. They flip from the unstable $y=0$ to $y= (x-x_0)^3$, at an arbitrary point $x=x_0$ which parameterises them. The condition $(2,0)$ translates to $x_0\ge 2$ – Calvin Khor Jul 19 '21 at 04:13
  • 1
    @MichaelMcCain The notion of "general solution" really depends on the book and context sometimes. You may look this question in which the general solution can never be continuous and differentiable at some point at the same time. Though we need nth derivative of f to exist for all x for which the differential equation is defined, when f is a solution of nth order ordinary differential equation. The "general solution" in this particular question is chosen to be continuous for some reasons and differentiability is ignored. Here's the link- – Aman Kushwaha Jul 19 '21 at 04:14
  • 1
    https://math.stackexchange.com/questions/4190216/solve-the-initial-value-problem-fracdydx-y-fx-where-fx-begin – Aman Kushwaha Jul 19 '21 at 04:15
  • @CalvinKhor I don't get you. Is there some initial condition given with the differential equation in the question? – Aman Kushwaha Jul 19 '21 at 04:19
  • 1
    I ran very quickly out of space here so I wrote another answer @AmanKushwaha – Calvin Khor Jul 19 '21 at 05:12
2

The answer of Aman is incomplete, but I cannot explain myself reasonably in just a few comments so I will post an answer.

There are many more solutions that flip from the unstable $y=0$ to $y= (x-x_0)^3$ at an arbitrary point $x_0\in\mathbb R$, which parameterises the family of solutions $(y^{x_0})_{x_0\in\mathbb R}$: $$y^{x_0}(x) := \begin{cases} 0 &x\le x_0\\ (x-x_0)^3 &x>x_0\end{cases}$$ In fact you could also allow it to have the cubic behavior at $x=-\infty$ and then just flatten out once it reaches $y=0$: $$y_{x_0}(x) := \begin{cases} (x-x_0)^3 &x\le x_0 \\ 0 &x> x_0\end{cases}$$ Note that $y_{2}$ also solves $y(2)=0$. There's also $y_{x_1}^{x_2}$ for $x_1<x_2$... I'll leave the enumeration of all possible solutions as an exercise in book keeping.

I say that the $y=0$ solution is "unstable" because if you perturb it to be positive at some point, then it must follow the cubic solution from that point on (interpreting $x$ as time marching forward.) Intuitively the $y^{2/3}$ term amplifies small errors near $0$, as for $t\in(0,1)$, $t^{2/3}>t$.

questions you might have from reading comments (not all were directed at me)

  1. Is there some initial condition given with the differential equation in the question?

Yes, but besides the point. It is given that $(2,0)$ is on the graph of the solution, i.e. $y(2)=0$. Note that giving an initial condition does not give uniqueness, and it shouldn't be expected anyway because this ODE fails to satisfy the assumptions of Picard's theorem (or even the Osgood lemma.)

  1. Is this a "solution" that is not even differentiable?

Weak solutions are a very interesting and useful idea, but it turns out the above solution is differentiable. It is IMO a good exercise to show by direct verification that in fact they are $C^{2,1}$, i.e. twice differentiable with Lipschitz second derivative. (check directly from the definition at the transition point $x=x_0$.) In fact any solution to $y'=y^{2/3}$, which I meant precisely that any differentiable function $y$ satisfying the ODE at every $x$, must also be continuous. Note that this is different from $y'+y=f$ where $f$ is not continuous (as in the linked post.) In fact, if $f$ has a jump discontinuity, then $y$ cannot be differentiable as derivatives satisfy the intermediate value property.

tl;dr the conclusion of Aman is correct but misses some technical details. I agree that usually, textbooks at this level say "general solution" to mean "the family of solutions you can find via separation of variables".

Calvin Khor
  • 34,903
  • Thank you very much sir. Yes, definitely there are more solutions however I was not aware of them before you commented. Besides, in my comment when I was talking about notion of "general solution" and said "this particular question" I was actually talking about another question the link for which I have already attached in the comment of my own answer. I was not questioning the differentiability of the solutions you mentioned. Thanks again. – Aman Kushwaha Jul 19 '21 at 05:52
  • @AmanKushwaha I rephrased it so to emphasise more clearly that you did not question their differentiability. :) My issue was/is only in how the family you wrote down would be the "general solution" – Calvin Khor Jul 19 '21 at 06:45
  • Yes of course, after looking at your answer I'm convinced that the general solution should include the solutions you mentioned. But the thing is I am an undergraduate student :) and I really had no idea about these solutions. I am grateful to you that you mentioned these even after the user accepted my answer. In my answer, I clearly wrote the word "general solution" but that didn't include all the solutions. I didn't hesitate to use the word "general solution" because I believed that the term "general solution" is not concretely defined atleast at my level and the notion of.... – Aman Kushwaha Jul 19 '21 at 08:34
  • ...general solution depends on the author of the book in which it is mentioned. Perhaps I was wrong about thinking so, and we can't use the word "general solution" unless it includes all the possible solutions of the differential equation or an initial value problem. If that's the case I would be willing to know more about what can we do if we are asked to find "general solution" but we know only certain methods for certain solutions and there is always a possibility that some solutions (which we don't know how to find) are lost. – Aman Kushwaha Jul 19 '21 at 08:40
  • I too had a question about some solutions being lost and not being a member of general solution, given in the book and the PhD guy who answered my question wrote in the first line, "When solving an ODE, as well as for PDEs, you have to choose what is your notion of solution". – Aman Kushwaha Jul 19 '21 at 08:43
  • 1
    @AmanKushwaha The answer you got is exactly right. Unfortunately in this case, "general solution" is not normally defined precisely because the concept usually comes up in an introductory course. In more advanced courses you usually get shown the cases where you can guarantee uniqueness (Picard theorem), but much less is usually said about non-uniqueness and much less can be said in general. – Calvin Khor Jul 19 '21 at 08:52
  • Very interesting. On further thought, to me it seems that you can always construct an infinite number of solutions if you have at least two. So…. Is it fair to say that for any given IVP, there will always be either no solution, exactly one solution, or an infinite number of solutions? – B flat Jul 19 '21 at 14:02
  • 1
    @MichaelMcCain this is true in all explicit cases I have ever studied or can remember...but that's not a proof :) Maybe if you look at a non-autonomous ODE, say $y' = y^{1/2} +x$, that might help...(just a guess) – Calvin Khor Jul 19 '21 at 14:05
  • 1
    It appears this is Helmut Kneser’s Theorem. https://math.stackexchange.com/q/657284/306540 – B flat Jul 19 '21 at 14:59
  • @MichaelMcCain thank you very much! Such a delightfully simple proof that almost "follows by example"! – Calvin Khor Jul 20 '21 at 13:32