Solution

ID: past-exam-of-the-differential-equations-2-course-of-the-university-of-oxford/2021/2/c/solution

For a putative second Frobenius solution with the smaller indicial root , set , with and for . Its recurrence relation is
The Frobenius case classification concerns the gap between the indicial roots. In the course convention, Case IIIa is the obstructed recurrence requiring a Logarithmic Frobenius solution; Case IIIb permits two pure Frobenius series.
If and , this is Case I: no denominator vanishes. There are two linearly independent pure Frobenius solutions, with
Their different leading powers establish linear independence.
If , this is Case II, with a repeated indicial root. There is only one pure Frobenius series with a nonzero leading coefficient. To see the second solution's form, reduction of order gives
Here , so the integrand is . Consequently
The logarithm has a nonzero coefficient and cannot be removed by adding a multiple of .
If is a positive integer, the only potentially obstructed coefficient is . Below that index, unless divides . At the exceptional index the equation reads
If for some positive integer , all coefficients are nonzero because . The exceptional equation is inconsistent. This is Case IIIa, and the independent second solution has the form
The Frobenius resonance for an Euler equation with monomial potential explains why divisibility, rather than the integer gap alone, decides this outcome. For example, with , applying the original differential operator to gives . Cancellation of the coefficient of requires .
If does not divide , then ; this includes through the negative-index convention. The exceptional equation is , so is free. This is Case IIIb: set to select an independent pure Frobenius series starting with . Subsequent coefficients again follow the recurrence relation. Changing simply adds a multiple of , the undetermined coefficient at Frobenius resonance.
The complete answer is therefore
In particular, for every positive integer gap gives Case IIIa. For , positive integer gives Case IIIa, while gives Case IIIb; the remaining positive give Case I. The condition matters: at the two Cauchy-Euler equation powers already give independent solutions whenever .

New to topics? Read the docs here!