Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Commentary for "Justifying the Method of Undetermined Coefficients"

Ackbach

Indicium Physicus
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,183
Good stuff! Just a couple of minor edits I'd recommend:

1. In the table, in the $y_{p}(x)$ column for Type I's, an $x^{s}$ seems to have become an $x^{2}$.

2. I would rewrite Equation (3) as follows (you haven't really used operator notation, but have included the test function in your definition of $L$, which is not usual):
$$(3) \quad L[y] \equiv a_nD^{n}+ a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+ \cdots+ a_{1}D+ a_0.$$
You do this later on, so this is more of a consistency thing, I think.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #3

MarkFL

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 24, 2012
13,735
Thank you! For some reason, I want to enter a 2 instead of an s. I appreciate you catching this!

Your suggestion of being consistent with operator notation is an excellent one.

I have made both edits. (Sun)
 

Ackbach

Indicium Physicus
Staff member
Jan 26, 2012
4,183
Hehe. Actually, I'm not sure I was consistent just then! You could either write
$$L \equiv a_{n}D^{n}+a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+ \dots + a_{1}D + a_{0},$$
or
$$L[y] = \left( a_{n}D^{n}+a_{n-1}D^{n-1}+ \dots + a_{1}D + a_{0} \right)y.$$
 
  • Thread starter
  • Admin
  • #5

MarkFL

Administrator
Staff member
Feb 24, 2012
13,735
I prefer the first notation. This was a group project taken from my old ODE textbook, and the original notation came from there (notice how I am "passing the buck?"). (Rofl)

I truly appreciate your suggestions, and feel the post has been improved because of them. (Rock)