I am wondering the intuition in regard to the following; (let $w$ represent the wronskian function).

Please correct me If I am mistaken, but I will write what I do know and what I am confused about.

Suppose we consider a set of $n$ differentiable functions, say, $\{f_1,…f_n\}$ on some open interval $I=(\alpha,\beta)$

Then why is it that

if $$w(f_1,…,f_n)(x) \neq 0$$ for $\mathbf{some}$ $x \in I$, then they are linearly independent on the interval.

But, if $$w(f_1,…,f_n)(x)=0$$ for even one $x \in I$, then they are linearly dependent in I?

Is this because if it is zero for one x that we can find, this implies that it will be zero for all $x \in I$? how can we conclude this?

in regard to its relationship with differential equations, ( which is why I am currently learning this), I understand that we would require $w \neq 0$ to have a unique solution, and I also understand why have a row that is a multiple of another would gives $w=0$ from simple determinant rules.

But I am having trouble tying it all together.

Thank you



Because Abel's Formula. it states that: $$W[y_1,\ldots,y_n]=Ce^h(x)$$ Since $e^h(x)\neq 0$ the only posibility to $W=0$ is when $C=0$, so $w=0$ always. The linear independence comes for the determinant of Wronskian, take a look of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abel%27s_identity.

| cite | improve this answer | |
  • $\begingroup$ Thanks, this is the type of thing I was looking for $\endgroup$ – Quality May 11 '15 at 22:17

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

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