Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. It's 100% free, no registration required.

This is a differential equations question. The only thing I know about differential equations is that there can be many subtleties.

Suppose that I have a function $g:\mathbb{R}^n \times \mathbb{R} \to \mathbb{R}^n$. I have a solution $x_0$ to $g(x_0, t=0)=0$. I desire to show the existence of a solution to $g(x_1, t=1)=0$. My strategy is to take the known solution $x_0$ and vary it from $t=0$ to $t=1$.

Let $J$ be the Jacobian $J_{ij} = \partial g_i / \partial x_j$. Define the function $f(x,t) = - J^{-1} \partial g/\partial t$. Then, setting $dx/dt = f(x,t)$ gives \begin{equation} \frac{dg(x,t)}{dt} = J \frac{dx}{dt} + \frac{\partial g}{\partial t} = 0. \end{equation} So it would seem that integrating this differential equation from $t=0$ to $t=1$ will lead to the desired solution $g(x_1, t=1)=0$.

What I need then is a theorem of the following form:


Suppose $g(x_0, t=0)=0$, and suppose that $\exists f$ such that \begin{equation} \frac{dx}{dt}=f(x,t) \implies \frac{dg(x,t)}{dt}=0. \end{equation} If $f$ and $g$ are well behaved enough in the vicinity $g(x,t) \approx 0$, then $\exists x$ such that $g(x,1)=0$.


When $g(x,t)=0$, I have a lower bound on the smallest singular value of $J$, and $\partial g/\partial t$ is bounded as well. So, in this case $f$ is bounded. In fact, I think that I can pretty much prove any needed type of "well-behavedness" in the region $\left| g(x,t) \right| < \epsilon$ for some $\epsilon$. So, what properties of $f$ and $g$ are needed, and what theorem will help me here? It looks like Picard-Lindelof may help, but it seems to only give the existence of a unique solution to the differential equation, and I need to show that that solution satisfies $g(x_1, t=1)=0$. Furthermore, $f$ is not well behaved when $g$ is far from zero, and so it seems I cannot use Picard-Lindelof without prior assumption that $g(x,t)$ stays small (which is kind of assumes the fact that I am trying to prove).

NOTE: since I didn't get any answers here, I also asked on mathoverflow.

share|improve this question
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.