The function solves , as a quick substitution shows, but a second-order equation needs two independent solutions, and constant multiples of give nothing new. Reduction of order lets the multiplier vary. It writes the unknown as times the known solution and turns the problem into a first-order equation for that can always be solved. In this lesson is the independent variable and a prime means .
Key terms
Known solution
Definition Reduction of order starts from the normalized homogeneous equation
on an open interval on which and are continuous. An equation is first divided by on an interval where , which gives and . A known solution is a solution on that is not the zero function. It may come from inspection, from a trial such as or , or from an earlier method, and it is confirmed by substitution. A known solution can vanish at points of , but only at isolated points. At a zero the slope cannot also be zero, since uniqueness would then make the zero function, so near the graph crosses the axis only once.
In plain words Reduction of order cannot start from nothing. Its input is one honest solution, checked by substitution, and the zero function does not count.
Example On the equation normalizes to
The function is a known solution, since and the remaining terms of the original equation give . It has no zeros on .
Reduction of order
Definition Let be a known solution of on an open interval on which and are continuous and has no zeros. Reduction of order looks for solutions of the form with an unknown twice differentiable function . The product rule gives
After substitution, the terms that contain without a derivative add up to , which is zero because is a solution. The equation becomes
Since itself no longer appears, the function satisfies the first-order linear equation
and this drop from order two to order one gives the method its name. With the integrating factor , its solutions are
for a constant .
In plain words The known solution supplies the shape and the multiplier supplies the new freedom. Because already solves the equation, every term with an undifferentiated cancels, and what is left is a first-order equation for .
Example The function solves on and has no zeros. Here , so , and the reduced equation is . Hence , so and . The new solution is exactly the second solution that the repeated root of supplies.
Reduction of order formula
Definition On an open interval on which and are continuous and the known solution has no zeros, a second solution is
where one fixed antiderivative of is used in the exponent and any antiderivative of the quotient is used outside. With definite integrals from a point of the formula reads
with . It is the case of the previous card. Only the normalized coefficient enters, and is used only through the fact that is a solution.
In plain words Take the exponential of minus an antiderivative of , divide by the square of the known solution, integrate, and multiply the result by the known solution. Everything needed comes from and .
Example For on with , the coefficient is , so
The quotient is , an antiderivative is , and . Substitution into the original equation confirms it, since .
Second independent solution
Definition Let with on , as in the formula. Then
which is never zero. So and are linearly independent on and form a fundamental pair there, and every solution on is . This agrees with Abel’s identity. Adding a constant to replaces by , which is another valid second solution with the same Wronskian. The constant in must be nonzero, since makes constant and returns a multiple of .
In plain words The Wronskian of the new pair is an exponential, and an exponential never vanishes, so the construction always produces a genuinely new solution rather than a copy of .
Example For and on , the Wronskian is , which equals for . The general solution there is . For and the conditions and give and , so
As a check, and , so , and the data hold since and .
Interval where the known solution is nonzero
Definition The substitution divides by , and the formula has in a denominator, so reduction of order is carried out on an open interval with for every in . Because the zeros of a known solution are isolated, removing them from leaves open intervals of this kind. A zero of restricts the method, not the equation. Since and are continuous on all of , the existence and uniqueness theorem for linear equations shows that every solution found on is the restriction of exactly one solution on , and the simplified formula often shows that extension directly. A point where , or where or fails to be continuous, is a singular point of the equation itself, and there the theorem gives no such guarantee.
In plain words Check what kind of point you are excluding. A zero of the known solution at a point where and are continuous only blocks the formula, and the second solution continues through it as a solution of the equation. A singular point of the equation can be a genuine barrier, and the theory makes no promise there.
Example Take with the known solution , which vanishes at every multiple of . On the formula with gives
The middle expression cannot be evaluated at or , yet solves on all of , as substitution shows, and . The zeros of restricted only the derivation. In the equation of the earlier cards, the known solution also vanishes at , but that point is different. It is a singular point of the equation, where the normalized coefficients and are undefined, so the work stays on .
Check yourself
- The function solves on . Use the reduction of order formula to find a second independent solution.
Show the answer
The normalized equation is , so and . The quotient is , an antiderivative is , and
To check, and , so the left side is . The Wronskian is , which is not zero on .
- The function solves on . Find a second independent solution, and say which coefficient must be used as .
Show the answer
Divide by first. The normalized equation has , so and on . The quotient is , and
Multiplying by gives , and since a constant multiple of a solution is a solution, works as well. Substitution confirms it, since . Using the unnormalized coefficient as would give the wrong exponential and a function that does not solve the equation. The Wronskian is nonzero on and vanishes at , where the leading coefficient is zero.
- The function solves . Find a second solution on , then decide which of the points , and are genuine restrictions for that solution.
Show the answer
On the normalized coefficient is , so and . On , where has no zeros, the quotient is
so
and
The point was excluded only because . The coefficients of the normalized equation are continuous on , and the simplified is smooth there and satisfies the equation at every point of , including . Its Wronskian with is , which is never zero on . The points are singular points, because the leading coefficient vanishes there, and really does become unbounded as or . The solution stays bounded there, so a singular point does not force every solution to blow up.