| 
July 25th, 2007, 08:28 AM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | Problem 32 Given a non-negative integer  we define  to be a solution* to:  .
Show that:  .
*)Yes, I realize what I said is not well-defined but it makes no difference. Pick any solution. | 
July 27th, 2007, 04:57 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18
Country: Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| | The given equation is the Legendre equation and its solutions are the Legendre orthogonal polynomials ( Legendre polynomials - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). I'm not sure how to show the orthogonality of the solutions from scratch though (i.e. w/o Rodrigues's formula). | 
July 27th, 2007, 06:49 PM
|  | Generous Contributor | | Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Angelica, NY
Posts: 7,605
Country: Thanks: 643
Thanked 2,305 Times in 2,093 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by mathisfun1 | But Rodrigues' formula is the simplest way to go with it!
-Dan
__________________ Got a Physics question? Come on over to To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - The Litany Against Fear, "Dune" by Frank Herbert | 
July 28th, 2007, 07:54 PM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | There is not need to use the Rodrigues formula, nor any identities that exist among Legendre polynomials.
Last edited by ThePerfectHacker; July 29th, 2007 at 03:31 PM.
| 
July 29th, 2007, 06:17 AM
|  | Generous Contributor | | Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Angelica, NY
Posts: 7,605
Country: Thanks: 643
Thanked 2,305 Times in 2,093 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker There is not need to use the Rodrigues formula, nor any identities tha exist among Legendre polynomials. | Well, I suppose you could plug the differential equation into the integral and get a diffeo-integral equation and work from there, but I've never seen it done.
-Dan
__________________ Got a Physics question? Come on over to To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"I must not fear. Fear is the mind killer. Fear is the little death that brings total obliteration. I will face my fear. I will permit it to pass over me and through me. And when it has gone I will turn the inner eye to see its path. Where the fear has gone there will be nothing. Only I will remain." - The Litany Against Fear, "Dune" by Frank Herbert | 
July 29th, 2007, 03:30 PM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | As mentioned this problem can be solved with Legendre Polynomials and their identities, but there is no need. There are many nice identities among the Legendre Polynomials and not a single one is used here.
The trick is to write the differencial equation as (in Sturm-Louiville form),
Thus, ![[(1-x^2)P_n'(x)]'+n(n+1)P_n(x)=0 [(1-x^2)P_n'(x)]'+n(n+1)P_n(x)=0](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/09749436fbc23be7c427fad817f4b1f3-1.gif)
Multiply by  to get, ![[(1-x^2)P_n'(x)]'P_m(x)+n(n+1)P_n(x)P_m(x)=0 [(1-x^2)P_n'(x)]'P_m(x)+n(n+1)P_n(x)P_m(x)=0](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/63811478048d2c0aec8d34ce219a0093-1.gif)
And integrate, ![\int_{-1}^1 [(1-x^2)P_n'(x)]'P_m(x) dx + n(n+1)\int_{-1}^1 P_n(x)P_m(x)dx=0 \int_{-1}^1 [(1-x^2)P_n'(x)]'P_m(x) dx + n(n+1)\int_{-1}^1 P_n(x)P_m(x)dx=0](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/9cd83d38656e2d701e77def453efbab3-1.gif)
Use integration by part on the first integral, 
The first term vanishes, 
Doing the similar steps with  instead we have, 
Now subtract these two equations to get, ![[n(n+1)-m(m+1)]\int_{-1}^1 P_n(x)P_m(x) dx = 0 [n(n+1)-m(m+1)]\int_{-1}^1 P_n(x)P_m(x) dx = 0](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/b314287c0786955d1417f59c43b9efa2-1.gif)
Since  and they are integers we have,  .
Q.E.D. | 
July 29th, 2007, 04:35 PM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | Here is a way to get the Rodrigues formula since it was mentioned.
Let  .
We see that,
Take the derivative  times to get, 
Take the derivative one last time, ![\left[(1-x^2)\frac{dz}{dx}\right]'+n(n+1)z^n=0 \left[(1-x^2)\frac{dz}{dx}\right]'+n(n+1)z^n=0](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/8bc0844ad4cdd77b75dc3b65744cac3d-1.gif)
Hence, 
Is a polynomial which solves the equation.
But we write it as, 
Because if we solve the Legendre equation with a power series we find that the leading coefficient of the polynomial starts with that factor. So to make Rodrigues formula agree with an infinite series solution we make the leading term equal to that factor.
------------------------------- Warning Complex Analysis Ahead
Here is a fabulous identity due to Laplace.
We begin by noting that, 
Where  is any peicewise smooth simple closed curve containing  .
This is immediately true by Cauchy's Integral Formula.
Let  define  for  . That is a circle centered at  with radius  .
Evaluating the above integral with this parametrization (and doing some simplification, not shown) we get Laplace's formula. | 
August 2nd, 2007, 11:26 AM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: At my house.
Posts: 396
Thanks: 30
Thanked 49 Times in 44 Posts
| | Quote: |
The trick is to write the differencial equation as (in Sturm-Louiville form)
| I claim this is cheating!
Since, by identifying a Sturm-Liouville operator here, the  are eigenfunctions and thus orthogonal for the  inner product - that is,  ; qed!
__________________ Never leave home without some Latex in your back pocket.
Last edited by Rebesques; August 2nd, 2007 at 01:24 PM.
Reason: eigenfunctions, more precisely
| 
August 2nd, 2007, 12:24 PM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by Rebesques I claim this is cheating!
Since, by identifying a Sturm-Liouville operator here, the  are eigenvectors and thus orthogonal for the  inner product - that is,  ; qed! | Yes, that is cheating. It takes all the fun away from the problem if it can be done.*
(Change "eigenvectors" to "eigenfunctions" to fix your post.)
*)I say "if it can be done" because this is not a boundary value problem. Thus, Sturm-Louiville Theory does not apply. Are you sure? | 
August 2nd, 2007, 01:23 PM
|  | Senior Member | | Join Date: Jul 2005 Location: At my house.
Posts: 396
Thanks: 30
Thanked 49 Times in 44 Posts
| | Quote: |
Change "eigenvectors" to "eigenfunctions" to fix your post
| thnx! Quote: |
this is not a boundary value problem. Thus, Sturm-Louiville Theory does not apply
| Doesn't have to be, Sturm-Louiville operators are really flexible about this.
__________________ Never leave home without some Latex in your back pocket. | 
August 2nd, 2007, 08:09 PM
| | Newbie | | Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 18
Country: Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by ThePerfectHacker
The trick is to write the differencial equation as (in Sturm-Louiville form), ![[(1-x^2)y']'+n(n+1)y=0 [(1-x^2)y']'+n(n+1)y=0](http://www.mathhelpforum.com/math-help/latex2/img/49950abca352c840a8ff487708819369-1.gif) |
So did you change your signature just for this problem :P? | 
August 2nd, 2007, 08:15 PM
|  | Global Moderator | | Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: New York City
Posts: 11,186
Country: Thanks: 482
Thanked 3,751 Times in 3,070 Posts
| | Quote:
Originally Posted by mathisfun1 So did you change your signature just for this problem :P? | You mean my Sturm-Louiville signature? No, it is just I sometimes post equations that I love. And sometimes that which I just learned. So for instance, the Sturm-Louiville signature was posted when I was doing boundary value problem from my Partial Differencial Equations book. | | Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes | Linear Mode |
Posting Rules
| You may not post new threads You may not post replies You may not post attachments You may not edit your posts HTML code is Off | | | All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:08 AM. | | |