Finding solutions for a system from the fundamental matrix. See Below
\[V(t)=\left[\begin{matrix}0 & 4te^-t & e^-t\\ 1 & e^-t & 0 \\ 1 & 0 & 0\end{matrix}\right]\]
Verify that v is a fundamental matrix for the system \[x'=\left[\begin{matrix}-1 & 4 & 4 \\ 0 & -1 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{matrix}\right]\]
so i found the eigenvalues and then the vectors, but I do not get what they got for V(t). the eigenvalues are 0 and -1, with -1 being a double root. I got the v1(t), when lambda is 0 but i do not get what I was supposed to for when lambda is -1, what am i doing wrong
The third column, the 4 is supposed to be -4.
@wio
Hmmm, I'm not completely sure what is being asked.
Is it just a diffeq but with repeated roots?
well, if I was given the x'=Ax matrix, and I solved for the eigenvalues and vectors, just like we did last night, and put together the matrix from the three solutions, I should get V(t), but I dont, I get the correct eigenvalues, and I get the correct v1(t) , when lambda is zero, i get (0e^0t, 1e^0t, 1e^0t), which is (0, 1, 1) which is what I am supposed to get for the first column of V(t), but when lambda is -1, I do not get either of those column vectors in V(t).
what is your eigen vector for \(-1\)?
i get (0, 0, 1)^T
By the way `\begin{bmatrix}` will auto add brackets.\[ \begin{bmatrix}-2 & 4 & 4 \\ 0 & -2 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & -1\end{bmatrix} \]
We gotta find the null space in this...
i thought the diagonal is -1 - (-1), so wouldnt both the -2 be 0's
Wait! I messed it up...
\[ \begin{bmatrix}0 & 4 & 4 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{bmatrix} \]
\[\left[\begin{matrix}0 & 1 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & 0\end{matrix}\right]\]
It seems that there are multiple ways of doing this one...
and thats what i end with, x2=0 x3=0, x3=x3
Hmm, basically it comes down to how you have to deal with repeated eigen values in diffeqs.
how do you do that
The middle row is the only row that is a bit strange.
that is what i was thinking to... because i have no idea how they get that t in there.
well if you are given all the solutions like in the V(t), how would we get the A matrix in x'=Ax if it wasnt given already to us?
Okay, so from what I've seen, once you find a vector \(v_1\) for a repeated eigen vector, you need to find a new vector \(b\), such that \[ (A-\lambda_1I)b=v_1 \]Then the solution is \[ v_1te^{\lambda_1t}+be^{\lambda_1t} \]
Or so it says in this book...
So we find \(b\)\[ \begin{bmatrix}0 & 4 & 4 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0 & 1\end{bmatrix} b = \begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0\\ 0 \end{bmatrix} \]
where did you get (1, 0, 0) from? I thought the vector was (0, 0, 1) or did I do that wrong
Because \([c,0,0]^T\) is the null space, the eigenvector.
maybe I am doing this wrong but I am getting (1, 4, 0)^T
How are you getting stuff like that?
I'm getting \([0,1/4,0]^T\)
ohhh yes you are right, i see what I did... but I just multiplied by 4, but yes, i got c2 is 1/4, so it would be what you got.
\[ \begin{bmatrix}0 & 4 & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & 1\\ 0 & 0 &0\end{bmatrix} b = \begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0\\ 0 \end{bmatrix} \]It row reduces to this, so I guess there are many solutions... this is confusing as hell.
yes it sure is. And that didn't quite work either... Im wondering if there is a to start from V(t), and find x' .
I have to run to the grocery store, if you find anything please let me know, otherwise I will be right back.
Anyway, my full solution is: \[ \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 1\\ 1 \end{bmatrix}e^{0t}+ \left(\begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0\\ 0 \end{bmatrix}te^{-t}+ \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 1/4\\ 0 \end{bmatrix}e^{-t}\right) + \begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0\\ 0 \end{bmatrix}e^{-t} \]This simplifies to: \[ \begin{bmatrix}0 \\ 1\\ 1 \end{bmatrix}+ \begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 0\\ 0 \end{bmatrix}te^{-t}+ \begin{bmatrix}1 \\ 1/4\\ 0 \end{bmatrix}e^{-t} \]
which just isn't consistent with their solution.. so I'm confused.
well it would be if the last two vectors were switched.
It's strange, because I'm getting:\[ V(t)= \begin{bmatrix} 0 & te^{-t} & 4e^{-t}\\ 1 & 0 & e^{-t} \\ 1 & 0 & 0\end{bmatrix} \]
It's not the order of vectors that is a problem, it's the fact that they have a \(t\) in the wrong column.
well i agree with you, i do not see any reason why it wouldnt be what you have there.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_L8RELShNI the guy's voice is kinda annoying, but the video explains it decently
ohhhhhhkaaaayyyy, haha, it is kind of annoying, but in this problem the k vector, would be (4, 1, 0), but not sure how to get that, but it was easy to understand, thank you again for your time and help.
Join our real-time social learning platform and learn together with your friends!