In this reference the author states what he calls "the theory of local solutions" for separable ordinary differential equations of the form $\frac{dy}{dx} = \frac{f(x)}{g(y)}$. He asserts that it suffices for $f$ and $g$ to be continuous and not to vanish simultaneously in a rectangular area $R$ of the plane in order for a unique solution to exist given an initial condition $(x_0,y_0)\in R$, but I have difficulty in interpreting his claim.

He does not specify what the domain of the solution will be, but since he talks about "local" solutions I believe that he is claiming that for each $(x_0,y_0)\in R$ there exist an open set $I$ of $\mathbb{R}$, contained in the projection of $R$ on the $x$-axis (and containing $x_0$), and a differentiable function $\phi : I \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ such that

  1. $\phi(x_0) = y_0$
  2. for each $x \in I$ $\phi'(x) = f(x)/g(\phi(x))$
  3. $\phi : I \rightarrow \mathbb{R}$ is unique

I do not understand his requirement that $f(x)$ and $g(y)$ should not vanish simultaneously in $R$. I think that if $g(y_0)=0$, even if $f(x_0) \neq 0$, there should be no solution passing through $(x_0,y_0)$ because there would be an undefined value for the derivative of an eventual solution. Should the text be emended to exclude the possibility of $g(y_0)=0$?

edit: I should add that I also don't understand well what is meant by uniqueness given we are talking of a local solution and the domain of the solution is somewhat arbitrary


Since $f(x)$ depends only on $x$ and $g(y)$ only on $y$, I think that what the author wants to say is that $f(x)\ne0$ and $g(y)\ne0$ for all $(x,y)\in R$. Otherwise, as you note, the conclusions would not hold.

Think of the simplest example $y'=1/(2\,y)$; $f(x)=1$ never vanishes, and $g(y)=2\,y$ vanishes only at $y=0$. The solution with $y(x_0)=y_0>0$ is $y=\sqrt{x+y_0^2-x_0}$, defined on $[x_0-y_0^2,\infty)$. The case $y_0<0$ is similar. If $y_0=0$, then there ae two solutions, $y=\pm\sqrt{x-x_0\strut}$, defined on $[x_0,\infty)$, which are not differentiable at $x=x_0$.

  • $\begingroup$ So if we assumed that $f(x) \neq 0$ and $g(y) \neq 0$ for all $(x,y)\in R$ does the result (local existence and uniqueness of the solution) hold? And if we assumed just that $y(x_0)=y_0 \neq 0$? $\endgroup$ – Cauchy Apr 24 '12 at 23:10
  • $\begingroup$ Let $G(y)=\int_{y_0}^yg(s)\,ds$ and $F(x)=\int_{x_0}^xf(s)\,ds$. Then the solution of $y'=f(x)/g(y)$, $y(x_0)=y_0$ is, in implicit form, $G(y)=F(x)$. If $y_0\ne0$, then $G'(y_0)=g(y_0)\ne0$. The implicit function theorem implies that $G$ is invertible on an open interval around $y_0$, and we obtain the solution in the form $y(x)=G^{-1}(F(x))$. So the answer to your question is yes, it is enough to have $g(y_0)\ne0$ to guarantee the existence and uniqueness of solution. $\endgroup$ – Julián Aguirre Apr 25 '12 at 10:39

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.