Mathematics Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for people studying math at any level and professionals in related fields. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I recently came across this equation : $$\forall x \in \mathbb{R}_+^*, f'(x) = f\left(\frac1{x}\right)$$where $f \in \mathcal{C}^1(\mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R})$.

I've done the following, but I'm stuck at the end. Could you give me pointers? Thanks!

Differentiating yields $$\forall x, f''(x) = -\frac1{x^2}f(x) \tag{$S_0$}$$Solutions in the form $$x \mapsto \frac1{x^\phi}$$ work iff $\phi(\phi+1) = -1 $, ie. $\phi = \frac{-1 \pm i \sqrt{3}}{2} =e^{\pm 2i\pi/3} = j, \overline{j}$. Elements of the vector space generated by the free pair $(x^j, x^\overline{j})$ are therefore solutions of ($S_0$).

I then feed $\lambda x^j + \mu x^\overline{j}$ in the original equation, which yields $-\lambda j\frac1{x^{j+1}}-\mu\overline{j}\frac1{x^{\overline{j} + 1}} = \frac{x^{j + \overline{j}}}{\lambda x^\overline{j} + \mu x^j}$, then $(-\lambda j x^{\overline{j}+1} - \mu \overline{j} x^{j+1})(\lambda x^{\overline{j}} + \mu x^j) = x^{1+j+\overline{j}} = x^0 = 1$, and $-\lambda^2 j x^{2\overline{j} + 1} - \mu^2 \overline{j} x^{2j+1} - \lambda\mu(j + \overline{j}) = 0 $. Thus, $$ \lambda^2 j x^{-2i\sin(2\pi/3)} + \mu^2 \overline{j} x^{2i\sin(2\pi/3)} = \lambda\mu$$

Does that mean that no solutions can be found to the original equation, except the trivial $x \mapsto 0$ one? Or that I didn't take the right approach? I can't figure out how to handle the last equality.

share|cite|improve this question
Sorry for the size of the equations; it seems that \displaystyle doesn't work. Can someone help me make this look better, or tell me how to do so? Thanks! – Clément Apr 7 '11 at 8:21
@Clément: Is this what you wanted? All I did was change some of your single-dollar signs to double-dollar signs. – TonyK Apr 7 '11 at 8:30
I think $(S_0)$ is wrong. The argument on the right-hand side should still be $1/x$. – joriki Apr 7 '11 at 8:44
@TonyK: Thanks! – Clément Apr 7 '11 at 8:48
Suggestion for a different solution: I think that if you put $g(x)=f(x)+f(1/x)$ and $h(x)=f(x)-f(1/x)$ then you get $g'(x)=g(x)$ and $h'(x)=-h(x)$. You can solve these two equations and obtain $f(x)$ from it. – Martin Sleziak Apr 7 '11 at 8:51
up vote 2 down vote accepted

There is a mistake in Clément's calculation: The Eulerian differential equation $y''+y/x^2=0$ has solutions of the form $y(x)=x^\lambda$ (resp. $=\exp(\lambda\log x)$ ) where $\lambda$ satisfies the "index equation" $\lambda(\lambda-1)+1=0$, so $\lambda={1\over2}\pm i{\sqrt3\over2}$. The general solution is $$f(x)=c_1\exp(\lambda_1\log x)+c_2\exp(\lambda_2\log x)\>.$$ If we confront this with the original functional equation $f'(x)=f(1/x)$ then we see that the latter even has real solutions, namely $$f(x)=C\>\sqrt{\mathstrut x}\>\cos\Bigl({\sqrt3\over2}\log x-{\pi\over6}\Bigr)\>,\qquad C\in{\mathbb R}.$$ Of course it is easy to check a posteriori that these are indeed solutions.

share|cite|improve this answer
You're right, actually forgot a minus sign in my calculation. I calculated $\phi$ using the $1/x^\phi$, and plugged $x^\phi$ in the equation. Thanks for your answer! – Clément Apr 7 '11 at 22:24

I don't understand how you got the equation after "in the original equation, which yields"; it seems there might be something wrong there but I'm not sure exactly what you did. I think this all gets a bit easier if you transform to $y=\ln x$ and $g(y)=f(x)$; then the condition reads


and differentiating as you did yields


The solutions of the characteristic equation are the same $j,\overline{j}$ that you got, so the original equation becomes


Since $1-j=\overline{j}$ and $1-\overline{j}=j$, this is satisfied if $jc_1=c_2$ and $\overline{j}c_2=c_1$, and these conditions are actually equivalent, since $j\overline{j}=1$. So the solution is

$$c \left(\mathrm{e}^{jy}+j\mathrm{e}^{\overline{j}y}\right)=c\left(x^j+jx^{\overline{j}}\right)\;.$$

For this to be real, we must have $c=b/\sqrt{j}$ with $b\in\mathbb{R}$, and thus


with $a\in\mathbb{R}$. Plugging this back into the original equation shows that this is indeed a solution.

share|cite|improve this answer
By the way, the problem is a lot more interesting than it looks at first sight :-) – joriki Apr 7 '11 at 10:00
Thanks for your thorough explanation and solution; it is a pretty approach indeed, one which I didn't think of at all. Nice work! As you may have seen in my comment to Christian's answer, my mistake is that I plugged $x^j$ instead of $x^{-j}$, which gave me the eventual impression that there were no solutions. Thanks again for your help! – Clément Apr 7 '11 at 22:26

i don't know if i can comment to clement's question so i will write my answer here. what you have shown is that any solution to $\frac{df(x)}{dx} = f(\frac{1}{x})$ satsifies the cauchy-euler equation $\frac{d^2 f(x)}{dx^2}=-\frac{1}{x^2} f(x)$ whose solutions are $\sqrt x \cos(\sqrt 3 \ln x /2)$ and $\sqrt x \sin(\sqrt 3 \ln x /2)$. the trouble, i think, is the converse statment that the solutions of cauchy-euler equation satisfies the $\frac{df(x)}{dx} = f(\frac{1}{x})$ is false.

share|cite|improve this answer
Where did you read that $f''(x)=-f(x)$? – Did Apr 7 '11 at 15:19
i meant to write $\frac{d^2 f}{dx^2} = -\frac{1}{x^2}f(x)$ making it a cuachy-euler equation. – abel Apr 7 '11 at 16:56
Hi abel, thanks for your help! In fact, the reasoning only showed that the condition obtained was necessary, but not a priori sufficient. Hence my question, since it seemed to me that no combination of the Euler equation was a solution to the initial problem, and I wanted to make sure that there was no mistake; but the actual mistake was pretty trivial: I swapped a $x^j$ and $x^-j$ :/ – Clément Apr 7 '11 at 22:32

Your Answer


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

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.