Solving Integral Equation by Converting to Differential Equations












2












$begingroup$


Consider the problem



$$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Consider the problem



    $$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



    How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Consider the problem



      $$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



      How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Consider the problem



      $$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



      How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?







      ordinary-differential-equations integral-equations integro-differential-equations






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked Mar 29 at 18:29









      LightningStrikeLightningStrike

      555




      555






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrm{d}s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin{(x)}$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            Mar 29 at 19:03










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:07












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            Mar 29 at 19:17










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:28



















          1












          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $${phi }'(x)=1-int_{0}^{x}{phi (s)ds}$$



          Differentiate again:



          $${phi }''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:51










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            Mar 29 at 19:56












          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 20:05














          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "69"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: true,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: 10,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          noCode: true, onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3167442%2fsolving-integral-equation-by-converting-to-differential-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4












          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrm{d}s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin{(x)}$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            Mar 29 at 19:03










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:07












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            Mar 29 at 19:17










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:28
















          4












          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrm{d}s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin{(x)}$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            Mar 29 at 19:03










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:07












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            Mar 29 at 19:17










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:28














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrm{d}s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrm{d}s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d} s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Mar 29 at 19:00

























          answered Mar 29 at 18:52









          BotondBotond

          6,54531034




          6,54531034












          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin{(x)}$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            Mar 29 at 19:03










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:07












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            Mar 29 at 19:17










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:28


















          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin{(x)}$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            Mar 29 at 19:03










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:07












          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            Mar 29 at 19:17










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:28
















          $begingroup$
          In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin{(x)}$ because of the original equation.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Foreman
          Mar 29 at 19:03




          $begingroup$
          In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin{(x)}$ because of the original equation.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Foreman
          Mar 29 at 19:03












          $begingroup$
          @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 19:07






          $begingroup$
          @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 19:07














          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
          $endgroup$
          – LightningStrike
          Mar 29 at 19:17




          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
          $endgroup$
          – LightningStrike
          Mar 29 at 19:17












          $begingroup$
          @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s$?
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 19:28




          $begingroup$
          @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrm{d}s$?
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 19:28











          1












          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $${phi }'(x)=1-int_{0}^{x}{phi (s)ds}$$



          Differentiate again:



          $${phi }''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:51










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            Mar 29 at 19:56












          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 20:05


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $${phi }'(x)=1-int_{0}^{x}{phi (s)ds}$$



          Differentiate again:



          $${phi }''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$









          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:51










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            Mar 29 at 19:56












          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 20:05
















          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $${phi }'(x)=1-int_{0}^{x}{phi (s)ds}$$



          Differentiate again:



          $${phi }''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $${phi }'(x)=1-int_{0}^{x}{phi (s)ds}$$



          Differentiate again:



          $${phi }''(x)=-phi (x)$$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited Mar 29 at 18:56

























          answered Mar 29 at 18:51









          logologo

          19610




          19610








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:51










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            Mar 29 at 19:56












          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 20:05
















          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 19:51










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            Mar 29 at 19:56












          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            Mar 29 at 20:05










          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 19:51




          $begingroup$
          Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 19:51












          $begingroup$
          may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
          $endgroup$
          – logo
          Mar 29 at 19:56






          $begingroup$
          may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
          $endgroup$
          – logo
          Mar 29 at 19:56














          $begingroup$
          I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 20:05






          $begingroup$
          I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          Mar 29 at 20:05




















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3167442%2fsolving-integral-equation-by-converting-to-differential-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          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







          Popular posts from this blog

          Biblatex bibliography style without URLs when DOI exists (in Overleaf with Zotero bibliography)

          ComboBox Display Member on multiple fields

          Is it possible to collect Nectar points via Trainline?