1
$\begingroup$

Suppose I have an inexact differential equation (please forgive me for my sloppy use of differentials etc.)

$$0 = A(x,y)dy+B(x,y)dx.$$

Now my understanding is that we employ a few theorems to solve this problem:

(1) We assert that some integrating factor $\mu$ exists for which $\frac{\partial(\mu A)}{\partial x}=\frac{\partial(\mu B)}{\partial y}$. Is it obvious that such a $\mu$ exists or am I missing something?

(2) It is straightforward to show that if $\mu$ is only a function of one of $x$ or $y$ then it has a form given by some integral. For example, (WLOG, I now take the case that $\mu = \mu(x)$), given that (1) is true, I have $$\mu \frac{\partial B}{\partial y} = A\frac{d\mu}{dx}+\mu \frac{\partial A}{\partial x},$$ from which we see that $$\frac{d\mu}{dx}=\frac{\mu}{A}\left(\frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x} \right) \equiv \mu f$$ where in the last step I've defined $f = \frac{1}{A}\left(\frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x} \right)$ (and indeed it is only a function of $x$ by our hypothesis that $\mu$ is only a function of $x$). We can easily proceed from here to compute $\mu$ and to solve for an in general implicit relationship between $y$ and $x$ via the theory of exact differential equations. No problem there. However, it's also stated in my textbook (Riley, Hobson, and Bence, 3rd edition) that $f$ can give a sufficient condition for when $\mu$ will be only a function of $x$. That is, it says that if I compute $f$ and find that $f(x,y) = f(x)$ then I can conclude that $\mu$ will be only a function of $x$. Is this obvious?

In summary, I'm hoping someone can provide a proof of the two theorems I've stated and/or a resource to such a proof.

$\endgroup$
1
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ W. Walter, Ordinary Differential Equations, GTM 182, Chapter I.§3 (p. 39 ff.) is a reference for Euler multipliers. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 2, 2023 at 20:54

1 Answer 1

2
+50
$\begingroup$

In the following, we (mostly directly) describe results outlined in "Differential Equations with Applications and Historical Notes (3ed)" by George F. Simmons (Pages 74 to 77 and Pages 8-9).

$\textbf{Claim 1}$: The equation \begin{align}\label{eqn::1}\tag{1} B(x,y) dx + A(x,y) dy = 0 \end{align} always has an integrating factor if it has a general solution (to be defined later) $f(x,y) = \xi$ for some scalar $\xi.$

$\textit{Proof}$. Suppose that (\ref{eqn::1}) has the general solution \begin{align}\label{eqn::2}\tag{2} f(x,y) = \xi \end{align} for some $\xi \in \mathbb{R}.$ Then one may compute the total derivative of $f,$ which eliminates $\xi,$ and yields \begin{align}\label{eqn::3}\tag{3} df = \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} dx + \frac{\partial f}{\partial y} dy = 0. \end{align} By (\ref{eqn::1}) and (\ref{eqn::3}), one has \begin{align}\label{eqn::4}\tag{4} \frac{dy}{dx} = - \frac{B(x,y)}{A(x,y)} = - \frac{\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}}{\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}}. \end{align} Therefore, \begin{align}\label{eqn::5}\tag{5} \frac{\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}}{B(x,y)} = \frac{\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}}{A(x,y)} \end{align} Set $\mu(x,y) = \frac{\frac{\partial f}{\partial x}}{B(x,y)} = \frac{\frac{\partial f}{\partial y}}{A(x,y)}.$ This implies that $\frac{\partial f}{\partial x} = \mu(x,y) B(x,y)$ and $\frac{\partial f}{\partial y} = \mu(x,y) A(x,y).$ Hence, multiplying (\ref{eqn::1}) by $\mu(x,y)$ yields \begin{align}\label{eqn::6}\tag{6} \mu(x,y) B(x,y) dx + \mu(x,y) A(x,y) dy = 0 \end{align} or, equivalently \begin{align}\label{eqn::7}\tag{7} \frac{\partial f}{\partial x} dx + \frac{\partial f}{\partial y} dy = 0, \end{align} which is exact. Thus, if (\ref{eqn::1}) has a general solution, then it has at least one integrating factor. In fact, (\ref{eqn::1}) as arbitrarily many integrating factors in this case. Observe that for any mapping $T(f)$ of $f,$ one has \begin{align}\label{eqn::8}\tag{8} \mu(x,y) T (f) (B(x,y) dx + A(x,y) dy) &= T(f) ( \mu(x,y) B(x,y) dx + \mu(x,y) A(x,y) dy )\\ &= T(f) df \\ &= d \left[ \int T(f) df \right], \end{align} in which case, $\mu(x,y) T(f)$ is also an integrating factor for (\ref{eqn::1}).

Also note the following: if $\mu$ is an integrating factor for (\ref{eqn::1}), then, by the exactness of (\ref{eqn::6}), we have (suppressing the arguments of the functions for convenience) \begin{align}\label{eqn::9}\tag{9} \frac{\partial (\mu B)}{\partial y} = \frac{\partial (\mu A)}{\partial x} &\iff \mu \frac{\partial B}{\partial y} + M \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial y} = \mu \frac{\partial A}{\partial x} + A \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial x} \\ &\iff \frac{1}{\mu} \left[ A \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial x} - B \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial y} \right] = \frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x}. \end{align}

$\textbf{Claim 2}$:

(i) If $\mu(x,y) \equiv \mu(x),$ then there exists some function $L(x)$ such that $\mu(x) = e^{\int L(x) dx}.$

(ii) If $\frac{\frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x}}{A(x,y)} = H(x),$ then there exists a function of $x,$ say $\hat{\mu}(x),$ such that $\hat{\mu}$ is an integrating factor for (\ref{eqn::1}). (simply define $\hat{\mu}(x) = e^{\int H(x) dx}$ and check that it obeys the aforementioned requirements for an integrating factor).

$\textit{Proof of}$ (i). Suppose that $\mu(x,y) \equiv \mu(x).$ Then (\ref{eqn::9}) yields \begin{align}\label{eqn::10}\tag{10} \frac{1}{\mu} \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial x} = \frac{\frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x}}{A(x,y)}. \end{align} Set $L(x) = \frac{\frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x}}{A(x,y)}.$ Then we have \begin{align}\label{eqn::11}\tag{11} \frac{1}{\mu} \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial x} = L(x) &\iff \frac{d (\log \, \mu)}{dx} = L(x) \\ &\iff \log \, \mu = \int L(x) \, dx \\ &\iff \mu = e^{\int L(x) \, dx}. \end{align} Note that this line of logic can be done in the opposite direction to yield (ii). That is, assume (ii), then $\hat{\mu}(x) = e^{\int H(x) dx}$ depends only on $x$ and also satisfies (\ref{eqn::9}).

$\textbf{What is a General Solution}$?

  • Theorem (Banach-Picard): If $f(x,y)$ and $\partial f / \partial y$ are continuous functions on a closed rectangle $R,$ then for every point $(a,b) \in \textrm{int} \, R,$ there passes a unique integral curve of the equation $dy / dx = f(x,y).$

If one fixes $a$ in the context of the theorem above, then the integral curve passing through $(a,b)$ is a one-parameter family of curves, parametrized by $b;$ i.e., it is a family of functions of the form $\{ y_{\alpha}(x) \}_{\alpha \in I}$ (here, $I$ is a (possibly uncountable) indexing set dictating the space of the parameters; in our case $I = \mathbb{R}$).

Thus, the integral curve that passes through the point $(a,b)$ corresponds to some value $\alpha$ for which $b = y_{\alpha}(a).$ If we denote this critical $\alpha$ by $\alpha_0,$ then $$ y(x) = y_{\alpha}(x) $$ is called the general solution of $dy / dx = f(x,y)$ and $$ y(x) = y_{\alpha_0}(x) $$ is called the particular solution of $dy / dx = f(x,y).$

A more thorough description of results for differential equations of this type can be found in "Differential Calculus" by Henri Cartan (Section 3.10., Pages 144 to 147).

$\endgroup$
5
  • $\begingroup$ Thank you for your answer. I am about to leave the house but will try to review this tonight or early tomorrow. $\endgroup$
    – EE18
    Commented Jan 2, 2023 at 22:04
  • $\begingroup$ I am reading now. I think below (2) you mean to write $\xi$ rather than $\alpha$. $\endgroup$
    – EE18
    Commented Jan 3, 2023 at 19:20
  • $\begingroup$ I'm afraid I still don't follow how claim (ii) follows. In particular, if $\frac{\frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x}}{A(x,y)} = H(x)$ then from your last expression in (9) I conclude that $\frac{1}{\mu} \left[ \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial x} - B/A \frac{\partial \mu}{\partial y} \right] = H(x)$, but why can't this be (I suppose your are trying to say that the LHS cannot be a funciton of only $x$ here, but I don't see it. $\endgroup$
    – EE18
    Commented Jan 3, 2023 at 19:39
  • $\begingroup$ Yes. More specifically, I mean that if $\frac{ \frac{\partial B}{\partial y} - \frac{\partial A}{\partial x} }{A(x,y)} = H(x),$ then one can define an arbitrary function of $x,$ say $\hat{\mu}(x)$ via the integration in (11). In which case, one can then show that $\hat{\mu}(x)$ satisfies (9) (along with the other aforementioned properties of an integrating factor). This yields an existence of such an integrating factor. I should be careful though in my phrasing, in that, it is not necessarily the same one (but we know this to be true by (8)) $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 2:08
  • $\begingroup$ I've made edits to reflect this. $\endgroup$ Commented Jan 4, 2023 at 2:13

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .