Unit 4, lesson 24

Reduction of Order for Linear Equations

How reduction of order uses one known solution to find a second independent solution, where the reduction of order formula comes from, and why it is derived on an interval where the known solution is nonzero.

  • Video 24
  • Reduction of Order and Cauchy-Euler Equations

The function y=xy = x solves x2y′′−2xy′+2y=0x^2y'' - 2xy' + 2y = 0, as a quick substitution shows, but a second-order equation needs two independent solutions, and constant multiples of xx give nothing new. Reduction of order lets the multiplier vary. It writes the unknown as vv times the known solution and turns the problem into a first-order equation for v′v' that can always be solved. In this lesson xx is the independent variable and a prime means d/dxd/dx.

Key terms

Known solution

Definition Reduction of order starts from the normalized homogeneous equation

y′′+p(x) y′+q(x) y=0y'' + p(x)\,y' + q(x)\,y = 0

on an open interval II on which pp and qq are continuous. An equation P(x) y′′+Q(x) y′+R(x) y=0P(x)\,y'' + Q(x)\,y' + R(x)\,y = 0 is first divided by P(x)P(x) on an interval where P(x)≠0P(x) \ne 0, which gives p=Q/Pp = Q/P and q=R/Pq = R/P. A known solution is a solution y1y_1 on II that is not the zero function. It may come from inspection, from a trial such as xrx^r or erxe^{rx}, or from an earlier method, and it is confirmed by substitution. A known solution can vanish at points of II, but only at isolated points. At a zero x0x_0 the slope y1′(x0)y_1'(x_0) cannot also be zero, since uniqueness would then make y1y_1 the zero function, so near x0x_0 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 (0,∞)(0, \infty) the equation x2y′′−2xy′+2y=0x^2y'' - 2xy' + 2y = 0 normalizes to

y′′−2x y′+2x2 y=0.y'' - \frac{2}{x}\,y' + \frac{2}{x^2}\,y = 0.

The function y1=xy_1 = x is a known solution, since y1′′=0y_1'' = 0 and the remaining terms of the original equation give −2x⋅1+2x=0-2x \cdot 1 + 2x = 0. It has no zeros on (0,∞)(0, \infty).

Reduction of order

Definition Let y1y_1 be a known solution of y′′+p y′+q y=0y'' + p\,y' + q\,y = 0 on an open interval JJ on which pp and qq are continuous and y1y_1 has no zeros. Reduction of order looks for solutions of the form y=v(x) y1(x)y = v(x)\,y_1(x) with an unknown twice differentiable function vv. The product rule gives

y′=v′y1+vy1′,y′′=v′′y1+2v′y1′+vy1′′.\begin{aligned} y' &= v'y_1 + vy_1', \\[0.4em] y'' &= v''y_1 + 2v'y_1' + vy_1''. \end{aligned}

After substitution, the terms that contain vv without a derivative add up to v (y1′′+p y1′+q y1)v\,(y_1'' + p\,y_1' + q\,y_1), which is zero because y1y_1 is a solution. The equation becomes

y1v′′+(2y1′+p y1) v′=0.y_1v'' + (2y_1' + p\,y_1)\,v' = 0.

Since vv itself no longer appears, the function w=v′w = v' satisfies the first-order linear equation

w′+(2y1′y1+p)w=0,w' + \left(\frac{2y_1'}{y_1} + p\right)w = 0,

and this drop from order two to order one gives the method its name. With the integrating factor y12e∫p dxy_1^2e^{\int p\,dx}, its solutions are

w=C e−∫p dxy12w = C\,\frac{e^{-\int p\,dx}}{y_1^2}

for a constant CC.

In plain words The known solution supplies the shape and the multiplier vv supplies the new freedom. Because y1y_1 already solves the equation, every term with an undifferentiated vv cancels, and what is left is a first-order equation for v′v'.

Example The function y1=e2xy_1 = e^{2x} solves y′′−4y′+4y=0y'' - 4y' + 4y = 0 on R\mathbb{R} and has no zeros. Here p=−4p = -4, so 2y1′+p y1=4e2x−4e2x=02y_1' + p\,y_1 = 4e^{2x} - 4e^{2x} = 0, and the reduced equation is e2xv′′=0e^{2x}v'' = 0. Hence v′′=0v'' = 0, so v=C1+C2xv = C_1 + C_2x and y=(C1+C2x) e2xy = (C_1 + C_2x)\,e^{2x}. The new solution xe2xxe^{2x} is exactly the second solution that the repeated root 22 of r2−4r+4r^2 - 4r + 4 supplies.

Reduction of order formula

Definition On an open interval JJ on which pp and qq are continuous and the known solution y1y_1 has no zeros, a second solution is

y2=y1∫e−∫p dxy12 dx,y_2 = y_1\int \frac{e^{-\int p\,dx}}{y_1^2}\,dx,

where one fixed antiderivative of pp is used in the exponent and any antiderivative of the quotient is used outside. With definite integrals from a point x0x_0 of JJ the formula reads

y2(x)=y1(x)∫x0xE(s)y1(s)2 ds,y_2(x) = y_1(x)\int_{x_0}^{x} \frac{E(s)}{y_1(s)^2}\,ds,

with E(s)=e−∫x0sp(r) drE(s) = e^{-\int_{x_0}^{s} p(r)\,dr}. It is the case C=1C = 1 of the previous card. Only the normalized coefficient pp enters, and qq is used only through the fact that y1y_1 is a solution.

In plain words Take the exponential of minus an antiderivative of pp, divide by the square of the known solution, integrate, and multiply the result by the known solution. Everything needed comes from pp and y1y_1.

Example For y′′−2x y′+2x2 y=0y'' - \frac{2}{x}\,y' + \frac{2}{x^2}\,y = 0 on (0,∞)(0, \infty) with y1=xy_1 = x, the coefficient is p=−2/xp = -2/x, so

e−∫p dx=e2ln⁡x=x2.e^{-\int p\,dx} = e^{2\ln x} = x^2.

The quotient is x2/x2=1x^2/x^2 = 1, an antiderivative is xx, and y2=x⋅x=x2y_2 = x \cdot x = x^2. Substitution into the original equation confirms it, since x2⋅2−2x⋅2x+2x2=0x^2 \cdot 2 - 2x \cdot 2x + 2x^2 = 0.

Second independent solution

Definition Let y2=v y1y_2 = v\,y_1 with v′=e−∫p dx/y12v' = e^{-\int p\,dx}/y_1^2 on JJ, as in the formula. Then

W(y1,y2)=y1(vy1)′−y1′ vy1=y12v′=e−∫p dx,\begin{aligned} W(y_1, y_2) &= y_1(vy_1)' - y_1'\,vy_1 \\[0.4em] &= y_1^2v' = e^{-\int p\,dx}, \end{aligned}

which is never zero. So y1y_1 and y2y_2 are linearly independent on JJ and form a fundamental pair there, and every solution on JJ is C1y1+C2y2C_1y_1 + C_2y_2. This agrees with Abel’s identity. Adding a constant cc to vv replaces y2y_2 by y2+c y1y_2 + c\,y_1, which is another valid second solution with the same Wronskian. The constant CC in w=C e−∫p dx/y12w = C\,e^{-\int p\,dx}/y_1^2 must be nonzero, since C=0C = 0 makes vv constant and returns a multiple of y1y_1.

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 y1y_1.

Example For y1=xy_1 = x and y2=x2y_2 = x^2 on (0,∞)(0, \infty), the Wronskian is W=x⋅2x−1⋅x2=x2W = x \cdot 2x - 1 \cdot x^2 = x^2, which equals e−∫p dxe^{-\int p\,dx} for p=−2/xp = -2/x. The general solution there is y=Ax+Bx2y = Ax + Bx^2. For y(1)=3y(1) = 3 and y′(1)=4y'(1) = 4 the conditions A+B=3A + B = 3 and A+2B=4A + 2B = 4 give B=1B = 1 and A=2A = 2, so

y=2x+x2.y = 2x + x^2.

As a check, y′=2+2xy' = 2 + 2x and y′′=2y'' = 2, so x2⋅2−2x(2+2x)+2(2x+x2)=0x^2 \cdot 2 - 2x(2 + 2x) + 2(2x + x^2) = 0, and the data hold since y(1)=3y(1) = 3 and y′(1)=4y'(1) = 4.

Interval where the known solution is nonzero

Definition The substitution divides by y1y_1, and the formula has y12y_1^2 in a denominator, so reduction of order is carried out on an open interval J⊆IJ \subseteq I with y1(x)≠0y_1(x) \ne 0 for every xx in JJ. Because the zeros of a known solution are isolated, removing them from II leaves open intervals of this kind. A zero of y1y_1 restricts the method, not the equation. Since pp and qq are continuous on all of II, the existence and uniqueness theorem for linear equations shows that every solution found on JJ is the restriction of exactly one solution on II, and the simplified formula often shows that extension directly. A point where P(x)=0P(x) = 0, or where pp or qq 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 pp and qq 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 y′′+y=0y'' + y = 0 with the known solution y1=sin⁡xy_1 = \sin x, which vanishes at every multiple of π\pi. On J=(0,π)J = (0, \pi) the formula with p=0p = 0 gives

y2=sin⁡x∫dxsin⁡2x=sin⁡x (−cot⁡x)=−cos⁡x.\begin{aligned} y_2 &= \sin x\int\frac{dx}{\sin^2 x} \\[0.4em] &= \sin x\,(-\cot x) = -\cos x. \end{aligned}

The middle expression cannot be evaluated at 00 or π\pi, yet −cos⁡x-\cos x solves y′′+y=0y'' + y = 0 on all of R\mathbb{R}, as substitution shows, and W(sin⁡x,−cos⁡x)=sin⁡2x+cos⁡2x=1W(\sin x, -\cos x) = \sin^2 x + \cos^2 x = 1. The zeros of sin⁡x\sin x restricted only the derivation. In the equation x2y′′−2xy′+2y=0x^2y'' - 2xy' + 2y = 0 of the earlier cards, the known solution xx also vanishes at x=0x = 0, but that point is different. It is a singular point of the equation, where the normalized coefficients −2/x-2/x and 2/x22/x^2 are undefined, so the work stays on (0,∞)(0, \infty).

Check yourself

  1. The function y1=x2y_1 = x^2 solves x2y′′−3xy′+4y=0x^2y'' - 3xy' + 4y = 0 on (0,∞)(0, \infty). Use the reduction of order formula to find a second independent solution.
Show the answer

The normalized equation is y′′−3x y′+4x2 y=0y'' - \frac{3}{x}\,y' + \frac{4}{x^2}\,y = 0, so p=−3/xp = -3/x and e−∫p dx=e3ln⁡x=x3e^{-\int p\,dx} = e^{3\ln x} = x^3. The quotient is x3/x4=1/xx^3/x^4 = 1/x, an antiderivative is ln⁡x\ln x, and

y2=x2ln⁡x.y_2 = x^2\ln x.

To check, y2′=2xln⁡x+xy_2' = 2x\ln x + x and y2′′=2ln⁡x+3y_2'' = 2\ln x + 3, so the left side is (2−6+4) x2ln⁡x+(3−3) x2=0(2 - 6 + 4)\,x^2\ln x + (3 - 3)\,x^2 = 0. The Wronskian is W=x2(2xln⁡x+x)−2x⋅x2ln⁡x=x3W = x^2(2x\ln x + x) - 2x \cdot x^2\ln x = x^3, which is not zero on (0,∞)(0, \infty).

  1. The function y1=exy_1 = e^x solves xy′′−(x+1) y′+y=0xy'' - (x + 1)\,y' + y = 0 on (0,∞)(0, \infty). Find a second independent solution, and say which coefficient must be used as pp.
Show the answer

Divide by xx first. The normalized equation has p=−(x+1)/x=−1−1/xp = -(x + 1)/x = -1 - 1/x, so −∫p dx=x+ln⁡x-\int p\,dx = x + \ln x and e−∫p dx=xexe^{-\int p\,dx} = xe^x on (0,∞)(0, \infty). The quotient is xex/e2x=xe−xxe^x/e^{2x} = xe^{-x}, and

∫xe−x dx=−(x+1) e−x.\int xe^{-x}\,dx = -(x + 1)\,e^{-x}.

Multiplying by exe^x gives y2=−(x+1)y_2 = -(x + 1), and since a constant multiple of a solution is a solution, y2=x+1y_2 = x + 1 works as well. Substitution confirms it, since 0−(x+1)+(x+1)=00 - (x + 1) + (x + 1) = 0. Using the unnormalized coefficient −(x+1)-(x + 1) as pp would give the wrong exponential ex2/2+xe^{x^2/2 + x} and a function that does not solve the equation. The Wronskian W(ex,x+1)=−xexW(e^x, x + 1) = -xe^x is nonzero on (0,∞)(0, \infty) and vanishes at x=0x = 0, where the leading coefficient xx is zero.

  1. The function y1=xy_1 = x solves (1−x2) y′′−2xy′+2y=0(1 - x^2)\,y'' - 2xy' + 2y = 0. Find a second solution on (0,1)(0, 1), then decide which of the points x=0x = 0, x=1x = 1 and x=−1x = -1 are genuine restrictions for that solution.
Show the answer

On (−1,1)(-1, 1) the normalized coefficient is p=−2x/(1−x2)p = -2x/(1 - x^2), so −∫p dx=−ln⁡(1−x2)-\int p\,dx = -\ln(1 - x^2) and e−∫p dx=1/(1−x2)e^{-\int p\,dx} = 1/(1 - x^2). On (0,1)(0, 1), where y1=xy_1 = x has no zeros, the quotient is

1x2(1−x2)=1x2+11−x2,\frac{1}{x^2(1 - x^2)} = \frac{1}{x^2} + \frac{1}{1 - x^2},

so

v=∫(1x2+11−x2)dx=−1x+12ln⁡1+x1−x,\begin{aligned} v &= \int \left(\frac{1}{x^2} + \frac{1}{1 - x^2}\right)dx \\[0.4em] &= -\frac{1}{x} + \frac{1}{2}\ln\frac{1 + x}{1 - x}, \end{aligned}

and

y2=x2ln⁡1+x1−x−1.y_2 = \frac{x}{2}\ln\frac{1 + x}{1 - x} - 1.

The point x=0x = 0 was excluded only because y1(0)=0y_1(0) = 0. The coefficients of the normalized equation are continuous on (−1,1)(-1, 1), and the simplified y2y_2 is smooth there and satisfies the equation at every point of (−1,1)(-1, 1), including x=0x = 0. Its Wronskian with xx is 1/(1−x2)1/(1 - x^2), which is never zero on (−1,1)(-1, 1). The points x=±1x = \pm 1 are singular points, because the leading coefficient 1−x21 - x^2 vanishes there, and y2y_2 really does become unbounded as x→1x \to 1 or x→−1x \to -1. The solution y1=xy_1 = x stays bounded there, so a singular point does not force every solution to blow up.

How this lesson connects