Why integral curves cannot be tangent to each other?
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.
Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?
Thanks!
differential-equations
New contributor
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.
Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?
Thanks!
differential-equations
New contributor
1
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:34
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41
1
What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03
1
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
– klirk
Nov 16 at 20:08
|
show 3 more comments
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
up vote
6
down vote
favorite
I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.
Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?
Thanks!
differential-equations
New contributor
I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.
Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?
Thanks!
differential-equations
differential-equations
New contributor
New contributor
New contributor
asked Nov 16 at 19:24
fyang
334
334
New contributor
New contributor
1
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:34
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41
1
What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03
1
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
– klirk
Nov 16 at 20:08
|
show 3 more comments
1
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:34
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41
1
What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03
1
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
– klirk
Nov 16 at 20:08
1
1
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:34
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:34
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41
1
1
What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03
What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03
1
1
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
– klirk
Nov 16 at 20:08
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
– klirk
Nov 16 at 20:08
|
show 3 more comments
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.
By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.
I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:
Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.
Then
$$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_x_0^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_x_0^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_x_0^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_x_0^x z(s) ~ds$.
This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)
But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
Hence the solution is unique.
So why does the prof mention $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ should be continuous?
This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.
This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:
$$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_tin [0,1]|fracpartial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))partial y| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.
Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^2/3$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min0,x^3$, and $,y_4(x)=max0,x^3$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^2/3$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative $partial foverpartial y$ is not even defined there.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
If
$f_y(x, y) = dfracpartial f(x, y)partial y tag 1$
is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for
$(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$
we have
$vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$
which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of
$y' = f(x, y) tag 4$
with
$y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$
Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!
Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.
add a comment |
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
3 Answers
3
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.
By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.
I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:
Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.
Then
$$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_x_0^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_x_0^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_x_0^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_x_0^x z(s) ~ds$.
This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)
But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
Hence the solution is unique.
So why does the prof mention $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ should be continuous?
This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.
This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:
$$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_tin [0,1]|fracpartial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))partial y| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.
Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.
By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.
I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:
Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.
Then
$$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_x_0^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_x_0^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_x_0^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_x_0^x z(s) ~ds$.
This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)
But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
Hence the solution is unique.
So why does the prof mention $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ should be continuous?
This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.
This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:
$$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_tin [0,1]|fracpartial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))partial y| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.
Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.
add a comment |
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
up vote
6
down vote
accepted
The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.
By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.
I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:
Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.
Then
$$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_x_0^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_x_0^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_x_0^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_x_0^x z(s) ~ds$.
This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)
But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
Hence the solution is unique.
So why does the prof mention $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ should be continuous?
This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.
This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:
$$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_tin [0,1]|fracpartial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))partial y| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.
Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.
The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.
By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.
I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:
Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.
Then
$$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_x_0^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_x_0^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_x_0^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_x_0^x z(s) ~ds$.
This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)
But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
Hence the solution is unique.
So why does the prof mention $fracpartial f(x,y)partial y$ should be continuous?
This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.
This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:
$$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_tin [0,1]|fracpartial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))partial y| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.
Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.
answered Nov 16 at 20:51
klirk
2,215428
2,215428
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^2/3$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min0,x^3$, and $,y_4(x)=max0,x^3$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^2/3$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative $partial foverpartial y$ is not even defined there.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^2/3$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min0,x^3$, and $,y_4(x)=max0,x^3$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^2/3$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative $partial foverpartial y$ is not even defined there.
add a comment |
up vote
7
down vote
up vote
7
down vote
For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^2/3$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min0,x^3$, and $,y_4(x)=max0,x^3$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^2/3$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative $partial foverpartial y$ is not even defined there.
For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^2/3$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min0,x^3$, and $,y_4(x)=max0,x^3$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^2/3$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative $partial foverpartial y$ is not even defined there.
answered Nov 16 at 20:03
Christian Blatter
170k7111324
170k7111324
add a comment |
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
If
$f_y(x, y) = dfracpartial f(x, y)partial y tag 1$
is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for
$(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$
we have
$vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$
which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of
$y' = f(x, y) tag 4$
with
$y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$
Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!
Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
If
$f_y(x, y) = dfracpartial f(x, y)partial y tag 1$
is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for
$(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$
we have
$vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$
which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of
$y' = f(x, y) tag 4$
with
$y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$
Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!
Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.
add a comment |
up vote
2
down vote
up vote
2
down vote
If
$f_y(x, y) = dfracpartial f(x, y)partial y tag 1$
is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for
$(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$
we have
$vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$
which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of
$y' = f(x, y) tag 4$
with
$y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$
Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!
Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.
If
$f_y(x, y) = dfracpartial f(x, y)partial y tag 1$
is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for
$(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$
we have
$vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_y_1^y_2 L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$
which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of
$y' = f(x, y) tag 4$
with
$y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$
Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!
Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.
edited Nov 16 at 21:52
answered Nov 16 at 21:46
Robert Lewis
41.6k22760
41.6k22760
add a comment |
add a comment |
fyang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
fyang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
fyang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
fyang is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3001543%2fwhy-integral-curves-cannot-be-tangent-to-each-other%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
1
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:34
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41
1
What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03
1
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
– klirk
Nov 16 at 20:08