Codex @codex  0

For $y\prime \prime +py\prime +qy=0$, the Wronskian satisfies $W\prime =-pW$.

More precisely, let $y_1,y_2$ be solutions of a differential equation for the same homogeneous linear differential equationon an interval $I$ where $p,q$ are continuous functions. For any $x_0\in I$, Abel's identity givesOnly the coefficient of $y^{\prime }$ enters the evolution of the Wronskian. In an unnormalized equation $A(x)y^{\prime \prime }+B(x)y^{\prime }+C(x)y=0$, first use $p=B/A$ on an interval where $A\ne 0$ and the coefficient ratios are continuous functions.^[ref]

The proof uses cancellation. Differentiating the Wronskian by the product rule and substituting the common equation givesMultiplying this first-order linear differential equation by the integrating factor $\mu (x)=\exp ({\int }_{x_0}^{x}p(s)ds)$ gives $(\mu W{)}^{\prime }=0$. Since $\mu (x_0)=1$, the constant is $W(x_0)$, proving Abel's identity. This argument also covers $W(x_0)=0$ without dividing by $W$.

The exponential function is positive for real $p$, so a real Wronskian either vanishes everywhere or has a fixed nonzero sign throughout $I$. In the preceding example, $p=-1$ and $W(0)=3$ give $W(x)=3e^x$ immediately. If $p=0$, every Wronskian of two solutions of a differential equation for that same equation is constant, regardless of $q$. Thus Abel's identity can certify linear independence and find the denominator used in variation of parameters without explicit formulas for both solutions of a differential equation.

An arithmetic series adds the sequence terms of an arithmetic progression. Its $n$-th partial sum is $S_n={\sum }_{k=1}^n{a}_k$, with the empty sum convention $S_0=0$. For $n\ge 1$,Thus the total is the number of sequence terms multiplied by the arithmetic mean of the two endpoints. The formula also covers decreasing and constant arithmetic progressions.^[ref]

For the eight-entry example, the sum is $8(7+28)/2=140$, and the arithmetic mean of all eight entries is $17.5$. A decreasing example $11,9,7,5,3,1$ gives $6(11+1)/2=36$. Negative values cause no algebraic difficulty: $3,1,-1,-3,-5$ has sum $5(3-5)/2=-5$.

The triangular number $T_n=1+2+\cdots +n$ is the special case $a_1=d=1$, giving $n(n+1)/2$. More generally, an equal increase in each successive allocation makes the total grow as a quadratic function of the number of allocations. The eight-entry example hasIts first four entries add to $46$, its first eight to $140$, and its first twelve to $282$. The sequence terms lie on a straight line when plotted against their sequence indices, while the partial sums follow a quadratic function.

Under suitable regularity and growth conditions, a function with Laplace transform $F$ is recovered by the inverse contour integralwhere the vertical line lies to the right of every singularity of $F$.

The $k$th elementary symmetric polynomial adds every product obtained by choosing $k$ distinct positions from $x_1,\dots ,x_n$:The conventions are $e_0=1$ and $e_k=0$ for $k>n$. The positions must be distinct, but their values may coincide. Each permutation of the variables merely rearranges the summands, so this is a symmetric polynomial.

For $x_1=1$, $x_2=2$, $x_3=3$, we obtain $e_1=1+2+3=6$, $e_2=1\cdot 2+1\cdot 3+2\cdot 3=11$, and $e_3=1\cdot 2\cdot 3=6$. Expanding the product givesIn general, ${\prod }_{i=1}^n(z-x_i)=z^n-e_1{z}^{n-1}+e_2{z}^{n-2}-\cdots +(-1{)}^n{e}_n$. Thus the coefficients of a monic polynomial collect elementary symmetric polynomials of its roots of a polynomial, with alternating signs. These are the Vieta formulas.^[ref]

Hölder's inequality controls a product using separate information about its two factors. If one factor is large on part of a domain, the other factor's complementary Lp norm limits how much their product can accumulate there. The same statement bounds finite sums, integrals and expected values; no independence is required in the probabilistic version.

Let $p,q\in [1,\infty ]$ be conjugate exponents, meaningOn a measure space, if $f\in L^p$ and $g\in L^q$, then $fg\in L^1$ andHere the Lp norms are finite; at exponent $\infty$ the norm uses the essential supremum. For a finite vector, integration with counting measure givesThe first step is the triangle inequality; the second is Hölder's inequality.^[ref]

For finite vectors, the endpoint case $p=1$, $q=\infty$ is $|x^{T}y|\le \Vert x{\Vert }_1\Vert y{\Vert }_{\infty }$: bound every $|y_i|$ by its maximum, then sum the $|x_i|$. Swapping the factors gives the other endpoint. The choice $p=q=2$ gives the Cauchy-Schwarz inequality.

An integral transform maps a function to a new function by integration against a kernel.

For each positive integer $n$, put $f_n(t)=\sin (2\pi nt)/n$ on $[0,1]$. Its supremum norm is exactly $1/n$, so this sequence of functions converges to zero by uniform convergence. Nevertheless,Each of its $n$ complete sine oscillations contributes $4/n$: rise from zero to $1/n$, fall through zero to $-1/n$, then return to zero. Taking a partition of an interval through all extrema attains $4$. Every further partition refinement merely subdivides monotone function segments, so the same reasoning as in partition example of total variation proves the upper bound too.

For a continuously differentiable function on a closed bounded interval, total variation also satisfiesApplied here, the derivative is $2\pi \cos (2\pi nt)$, and integrating its absolute value over $n$ periods gives $4$. The differentiability hypothesis matters: the partition definition applies much more widely than this derivative formula.^[ref] Small pointwise size and small accumulated movement are different approximation goals.

Variation of parameters replaces the constants in a complementary solution by functions to construct a particular solution.

For the inhomogeneous linear differential equation $y^{\prime \prime }+p{y}^{\prime }+qy=r$, assume $p,q,r$ are continuous functions on an interval $I$, and $y_1,y_2$ are linearly independent homogeneous solutions there. With $W=W(y_1,y_2)$ and $x_0\in I$, variation of parameters constructs the particular solutionThe Wronskian has no zeros on $I$, so these quotients are defined. For $A{y}^{\prime \prime }+B{y}^{\prime }+Cy=F$, normalize first: $r=F/A$, not $F$.^[ref]

To derive the formula, write $y_p=u_1{y}_1+u_2{y}_2$ and impose $u_1^{\prime }{y}_1+u_2^{\prime }{y}_2=0$. This auxiliary choice removes extra terms from the first derivative. Substitution into the inhomogeneous linear differential equation leaves $u_1^{\prime }{y}_1^{\prime }+u_2^{\prime }{y}_2^{\prime }=r$. The two linear equations for $u_1^{\prime },u_2^{\prime }$ have determinant $W$, and Cramer's rule givesIntegrating from $x_0$ makes $y_p(x_0)=y_p^{\prime }(x_0)=0$. Arbitrary integration constants contribute only homogeneous solutions; adding $c_1{y}_1+c_2{y}_2$ supplies the general solution.

For a worked example, use the same homogeneous solutions $e^{-x},e^{2x}$ and the forcing term $r=6e^{3x}$ in $y^{\prime \prime }-y^{\prime }-2y=6e^{3x}$. With $x_0=0$ and $W=3e^x$,Consequently the particular solution selected by zero initial conditions isIts value and first derivative vanish at zero. Direct substitution confirms the forcing term: the differential operator $L[y]=y^{\prime \prime }-y^{\prime }-2y$ annihilates the last two terms and maps $e^{3x}$ to $4e^{3x}$. The two integrals therefore build a response from known homogeneous solutions, even when the forcing term has no convenient elementary guess.

Vieta's formulas connect two descriptions of a polynomial: its coefficients and its roots of a polynomial. They let us read the sum and product of the roots of a polynomial without finding the individual roots of a polynomial, and turn a proposed factorization of polynomials into checkable coefficient identities. The key is that coefficients encode elementary symmetric polynomials, which are unchanged by a permutation of the roots of a polynomial.

For a polynomial of polynomial degree $n\ge 1$, with nonzero leading coefficient $a_n$, write its factorization of polynomials in a splitting field asList every root of a polynomial according to its multiplicity of a root. ThenIn particular, ${\sum }_i{r}_i=-a_{n-1}/a_n$ and ${\prod }_i{r}_i=(-1{)}^n{a}_0/a_n$. With coefficients in the real numbers or complex numbers, the fundamental theorem of algebra ensures that a list of $n$ roots of a polynomial in the complex numbers exists when multiplicity of a root is counted.^[ref]

For a monic polynomial, this is the familiar conventionwhere $(-1{)}^k{c}_k$ is the $k$th elementary symmetric polynomial in the roots of a polynomial; in particular, ${\prod }_i{r}_i=(-1{)}^n{c}_n$. The ratio by $a_n$ in the general statement matters: multiplying every coefficient by the same nonzero scalar preserves both the roots of a polynomial and these ratios.

A short derivation explains every alternating sign. In the product ${\prod }_i(x-r_i)$, a term of polynomial degree $n-k$ arises by choosing $-r_i$ from $k$ distinct factor positions and $x$ from the others. Summing the resulting products gives $(-1{)}^k{e}_k$. Values at different positions may coincide: the selection is of positions, not distinct root values. Matching coefficients gives the formula. This is the distributive property organized by the number of chosen root factors.

The boundary can recover more than a count. Under the hypotheses of the argument principle, let $h$ be a holomorphic function on a neighborhood of the contour and its interior. If the enclosed zeros of a function are $a_j$ with zero multiplicities $m_j$ and the enclosed poles are $b_k$ of orders $n_k$, thenMultiplying the local logarithmic derivative by $h$ changes its residue from $m_j$ to $m_{j}h(a_j)$, or from $-n_k$ to $-n_{k}h(b_k)$. The residue theorem then gives the identity. Choosing $h=1$ recovers the argument principle; choosing $h(z)=z$ gives the sum of the enclosed zero locations minus the sum of the enclosed pole locations, both counted with zero multiplicities or pole orders.^[ref]

For the rational function in argument principle for a rational function, the $h(z)=z$ integral is $2(1/4)-(-1/2)=1$. Adding the known pole location $-1/2$ back gives a zero-location sum of $1/2$. Dividing by the zero count two gives the arithmetic mean of the enclosed zeros, with multiplicity, as $1/4$. Choosing $h(z)=z^k$ similarly gives the difference between the power-sum symmetric polynomials evaluated on the enclosed zero and pole locations, repeating each location according to its multiplicity or order. These identities let boundary information constrain both the number and aggregate locations of enclosed zeros of a function.

For two differentiable functions $f,g$ on an interval $I$, their Wronskian is the functionThe order matters: exchanging $f$ and $g$ reverses the sign. For $n$ sufficiently differentiable functions, the Wronskian is the determinant $\det (f_j^{(i-1)}(x){)}_{i,j=1}^n$.^[ref]

The Wronskian measures whether the vectors $(f(x),f^{\prime }(x))$ and $(g(x),g^{\prime }(x))$ supply independent value-and-derivative data at that point. For real-valued functions, its absolute value is the area of the parallelogram they span. If a constant linear combination $af+bg$ is zero throughout $I$, then $a{f}^{\prime }+b{g}^{\prime }=0$ too. A nonzero Wronskian at even one point makes this pair of linear equations invertible and forces $a=b=0$. Thus a nonzero Wronskian somewhere always proves linear independence of the functions on $I$.

For an explicit example, the exponential functionssolve the same homogeneous linear differential equation $y^{\prime \prime }-y^{\prime }-2y=0$ on the whole real line: substitution gives $1+1-2=0$ and $4-2-2=0$, respectively. Their Wronskian isFor the initial value problem $y(0)=2$, $y^{\prime }(0)=-1$, the linear combination $y=c_1{y}_1+c_2{y}_2$ requires $c_1+c_2=2$ and $-c_1+2c_2=-1$. Hence $c_1=5/3$, $c_2=1/3$, and $y=\frac{5}{3}{e}^{-x}+\frac{1}{3}{e}^{2x}$. The nonzero Wronskian makes the two initial conditions independently adjustable.

The stronger converse requires a common equation. Suppose $y_1,y_2$ solve $y^{\prime \prime }+p(x)y^{\prime }+q(x)y=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ on one interval $I$. Then the functions are linearly independent if and only if their Wronskian is nonzero at one point, equivalently at every point. If $W(x_0)=0$, choose constants $a,b$, not both zero, making $z=a{y}_1+b{y}_2$ satisfy $z(x_0)=z^{\prime }(x_0)=0$. The superposition principle makes $z$ a solution of a differential equation for the same equation, and the uniqueness theorem for ordinary differential equations forces $z$ to be identically zero. This proves linear dependence.^[ref]

For arbitrary differentiable functions, an identically zero Wronskian need not imply linear dependence. Consider, on $I=(-2,2)$,Both functions have three continuous derivatives. On each side of zero, $g$ is a constant multiple of $f$, so $W(f,g)=0$; at zero their values and first derivatives are all zero, so the Wronskian is zero there too. Nevertheless $af+bg=0$ evaluated at $x=-1$ gives $a-b=0$, while evaluation at $x=1$ gives $a+b=0$. Hence $a=b=0$: these functions are linearly independent on the whole interval. There is no single constant multiplier valid on both sides of the common zero.

These functions cannot both solve any equation $y^{\prime \prime }+p{y}^{\prime }+qy=0$ with continuous functions $p,q$ throughout $(-2,2)$: even $f$ alone would contradict uniqueness because $f(0)=f^{\prime }(0)=0$ but $f$ is not identically zero. They do solve the singular equation $x^2{y}^{\prime \prime }-3x{y}^{\prime }=0$, whose leading coefficient vanishes at zero. Dividing by $x^2$ gives $p=-3/x$ only away from zero; Abel's identity cannot be applied across that point. The example pinpoints why checking the equation and its interval is essential before using a zero Wronskian to infer linear dependence.