Frobenius Method - Explanation

Explanation

The Frobenius method tells us that we can seek a power series solution of the form

Differentiating:

Substituting:

\begin{align} & {} \quad z^2\sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+r-1)(k+r)A_kz^{k+r-2} + zp(z) \sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+r)A_kz^{k+r-1} + q(z)\sum_{k=0}^\infty A_kz^{k+r} \\ & = \sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+r-1) (k+r)A_kz^{k+r} + p(z) \sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+r)A_kz^{k+r} + q(z) \sum_{k=0}^\infty A_kz^{k+r} \\ & = \sum_{k=0}^\infty (k+r-1)(k+r) A_kz^{k+r} + p(z) (k+r) A_kz^{k+r} + q(z) A_kz^{k+r} \\ & = \sum_{k=0}^\infty \left A_kz^{k+r} \\ & = \left A_0z^r+\sum_{k=1}^\infty \left A_kz^{k+r} \end{align}

The expression

is known as the indicial polynomial, which is quadratic in r. The general definition of the indicial polynomial is the coefficient of the lowest power of z in the infinite series. In this case it happens to be that this is the rth coefficient but, it is possible for the lowest possible exponent to be r − 2, r − 1 or, something else depending on the given differential equation. This detail is important to keep in mind because one can end up with complicated expressions in the process of synchronizing all the series of the differential equation to start at the same index value which in the above expression is k = 1. However, in solving for the indicial roots attention is focused only on the coefficient of the lowest power of z.

Using this, the general expression of the coefficient of zk + r is

These coefficients must be zero, since they should be solutions of the differential equation, so

The series solution with Ak above,

satisfies

If we choose one of the roots to the indicial polynomial for r in Ur(z), we gain a solution to the differential equation. If the difference between the roots is not an integer, we get another, linearly independent solution in the other root.

Read more about this topic:  Frobenius Method

Famous quotes containing the word explanation:

    “My companion assumes to know my mood and habit of thought, and we go on from explanation to explanation, until all is said that words can, and we leave matters just as they were at first, because of that vicious assumption.”
    —Ralph Waldo Emerson (1803–1882)

    “Auden, MacNeice, Day Lewis, I have read them all,
    Hoping against hope to hear the authentic call . . .
    And know the explanation I must pass is this
    MYou cannot light a match on a crumbling wall.”
    —Hugh MacDiarmid (1892–1978)

    “Natural selection, the blind, unconscious, automatic process which Darwin discovered, and which we now know is the explanation for the existence and apparently purposeful form of all life, has no purpose in mind. It has no mind and no mind’s eye. It does not plan for the future. It has no vision, no foresight, no sight at all. If it can be said to play the role of the watchmaker in nature, it is the blind watchmaker.”
    —Richard Dawkins (b. 1941)