Why integral curves cannot be tangent to each other?












6












$begingroup$


I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.



Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:34










  • $begingroup$
    The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
    $endgroup$
    – fyang
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:41






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is the example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
    $endgroup$
    – klirk
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:08
















6












$begingroup$


I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.



Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:34










  • $begingroup$
    The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
    $endgroup$
    – fyang
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:41






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is the example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
    $endgroup$
    – klirk
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:08














6












6








6


4



$begingroup$


I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.



Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?



Thanks!










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$




I am watching Lecture 1 of the differential equation course on MIT OpenCourseWare.
The teacher said, for $y'= f(x,y)$, if $f(x,y)$ is continuous around a point $(x0,y0)$, it would guarantee at least one solution, and if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous, it would ensure uniqueness of the solution, i.e. there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, meaning two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$.



Can anyone explain why there would be only one integral curve passing through $(x0,y0)$, i.e. two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, if $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ is continuous at $(x0,y0)$?
If 2 integral curves are tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$, then they should have the same derivative at $(x0,y0)$, which is equal to $f(x0,y0)$, right? How would this make $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial {y}}$ discontinuous at $(x0,y0)$?



Thanks!







ordinary-differential-equations






share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question











share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question










asked Nov 16 '18 at 19:24









fyangfyang

334




334








  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:34










  • $begingroup$
    The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
    $endgroup$
    – fyang
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:41






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is the example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
    $endgroup$
    – klirk
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:08














  • 1




    $begingroup$
    From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:34










  • $begingroup$
    The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
    $endgroup$
    – fyang
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:39










  • $begingroup$
    By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 19:41






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    What is the example ?
    $endgroup$
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:03






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
    $endgroup$
    – klirk
    Nov 16 '18 at 20:08








1




1




$begingroup$
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34




$begingroup$
From a point with an imposed derivative, you cannot "fork".
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 '18 at 19:34












$begingroup$
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
$endgroup$
– fyang
Nov 16 '18 at 19:39




$begingroup$
The teacher said if you forked, then there would be 2 derivatives. But if the two integral curves were tangent to each other, there would still be only 1 derivative at this point. That's partly why I don't understand why two integral curves can not be tangent to each other.
$endgroup$
– fyang
Nov 16 '18 at 19:39












$begingroup$
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 '18 at 19:41




$begingroup$
By what magic could the curves diverge ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 '18 at 19:41




1




1




$begingroup$
What is the example ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 '18 at 20:03




$begingroup$
What is the example ?
$endgroup$
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 '18 at 20:03




1




1




$begingroup$
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
$endgroup$
– klirk
Nov 16 '18 at 20:08




$begingroup$
Doesn't the teacher just say its hard to guess that the partial derivative being continuous is the required condition?
$endgroup$
– klirk
Nov 16 '18 at 20:08










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes


















6












$begingroup$

The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.





By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.



I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:



Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.

Then
$$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_{x_0}^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_{x_0}^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_{x_0}^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_{x_0}^x z(s) ~ds$.



This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)

But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
Hence the solution is unique.





So why does the prof mention $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial y}$ should be continuous?



This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.



This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:



$$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_{tin [0,1]}|frac{partial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))}{partial y}| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.



Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$





















    7












    $begingroup$

    For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^{2/3}$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min{0,x^3}$, and $,y_4(x)=max{0,x^3}$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^{2/3}$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative ${partial foverpartial y}$ is not even defined there.






    share|cite|improve this answer









    $endgroup$





















      2












      $begingroup$

      If



      $f_y(x, y) = dfrac{partial f(x, y)}{partial y} tag 1$



      is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for



      $(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$



      we have



      $vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$



      which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
      Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of



      $y' = f(x, y) tag 4$



      with



      $y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$



      Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!



      Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.






      share|cite|improve this answer











      $endgroup$













        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%2f3001543%2fwhy-integral-curves-cannot-be-tangent-to-each-other%23new-answer', 'question_page');
        }
        );

        Post as a guest















        Required, but never shown

























        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes








        3 Answers
        3






        active

        oldest

        votes









        active

        oldest

        votes






        active

        oldest

        votes









        6












        $begingroup$

        The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
        It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.





        By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.



        I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:



        Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.

        Then
        $$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_{x_0}^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_{x_0}^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_{x_0}^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
        So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_{x_0}^x z(s) ~ds$.



        This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)

        But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
        Hence the solution is unique.





        So why does the prof mention $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial y}$ should be continuous?



        This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.



        This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:



        $$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_{tin [0,1]}|frac{partial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))}{partial y}| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
        As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.



        Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.






        share|cite|improve this answer









        $endgroup$


















          6












          $begingroup$

          The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
          It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.





          By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.



          I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:



          Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.

          Then
          $$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_{x_0}^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_{x_0}^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_{x_0}^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
          So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_{x_0}^x z(s) ~ds$.



          This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)

          But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
          Hence the solution is unique.





          So why does the prof mention $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial y}$ should be continuous?



          This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.



          This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:



          $$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_{tin [0,1]}|frac{partial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))}{partial y}| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
          As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.



          Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.






          share|cite|improve this answer









          $endgroup$
















            6












            6








            6





            $begingroup$

            The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
            It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.





            By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.



            I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:



            Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.

            Then
            $$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_{x_0}^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_{x_0}^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_{x_0}^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
            So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_{x_0}^x z(s) ~ds$.



            This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)

            But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
            Hence the solution is unique.





            So why does the prof mention $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial y}$ should be continuous?



            This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.



            This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:



            $$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_{tin [0,1]}|frac{partial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))}{partial y}| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
            As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.



            Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.






            share|cite|improve this answer









            $endgroup$



            The teacher cites the Picard-Lindelöf theorem.
            It says that in a neighbourhood of the considered point, the ODE has a solution if $f$ is continuous and that the solution is unique if $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$.





            By definition $f(x,y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$, if there is a constant $Lin mathbb R$ such that $|f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le L|y_1-y_2|$ for all $x,y_1,y_2$.



            I will sketch the proof for uniqueness:



            Assume there are two solutions $y_1(x), y_2(x)$ which coincide at $x=x_0$.

            Then
            $$|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|= |int_{x_0}^x (y_1'(s)-y_2'(s))~ ds|leint_{x_0}^x |(f(s,y_1(s))-f(s,y_2(s)))~ds|\ le L int_{x_0}^x |y_1(s)-y_2(s)|~ds.$$
            So if we set $z(x):=|y_1(x)-y_2(x)|$, then $zle L int_{x_0}^x z(s) ~ds$.



            This can be used to show $zle 0$. (for example using the Grönwall inequality)

            But obviously $zge 0$, so $z=0$, but this just means that $y_1(x)=y_2(x)$.
            Hence the solution is unique.





            So why does the prof mention $frac{partial f(x,y)}{partial y}$ should be continuous?



            This is because the partial derivative being continuous in s neighbourhood implies that the function is Lipschitz continuous in this neighbourhood.



            This is a consequence of the mean value theorem:



            $$ |f(x,y_1)- f(x,y_2)|le sup_{tin [0,1]}|frac{partial f(x,y_1+t(y_2-y_1))}{partial y}| cdot |y_1-y_2|.$$
            As we can choose the neighbourhood to be convex, the supremum is finite, (i.e $<infty$) and takes the role of $L$.



            Thus $f$ is Lipschitz continuous in the second variable.







            share|cite|improve this answer












            share|cite|improve this answer



            share|cite|improve this answer










            answered Nov 16 '18 at 20:51









            klirkklirk

            2,619530




            2,619530























                7












                $begingroup$

                For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^{2/3}$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min{0,x^3}$, and $,y_4(x)=max{0,x^3}$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^{2/3}$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative ${partial foverpartial y}$ is not even defined there.






                share|cite|improve this answer









                $endgroup$


















                  7












                  $begingroup$

                  For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^{2/3}$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min{0,x^3}$, and $,y_4(x)=max{0,x^3}$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^{2/3}$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative ${partial foverpartial y}$ is not even defined there.






                  share|cite|improve this answer









                  $endgroup$
















                    7












                    7








                    7





                    $begingroup$

                    For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^{2/3}$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min{0,x^3}$, and $,y_4(x)=max{0,x^3}$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^{2/3}$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative ${partial foverpartial y}$ is not even defined there.






                    share|cite|improve this answer









                    $endgroup$



                    For the differential equation $$y'=3|y|^{2/3}$$ you have (at least) $4$ solutions through the initial point $(x_0,y_0):=(0,0)$, namely $y_1(x)equiv0$, $,y_2(x)=x^3$, $,y_3(x)=min{0,x^3}$, and $,y_4(x)=max{0,x^3}$, the exact reason being that for the right hand side $f(x,y):=|y|^{2/3}$, while continuous at $(0,0)$, the partial derivative ${partial foverpartial y}$ is not even defined there.







                    share|cite|improve this answer












                    share|cite|improve this answer



                    share|cite|improve this answer










                    answered Nov 16 '18 at 20:03









                    Christian BlatterChristian Blatter

                    172k7113326




                    172k7113326























                        2












                        $begingroup$

                        If



                        $f_y(x, y) = dfrac{partial f(x, y)}{partial y} tag 1$



                        is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for



                        $(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$



                        we have



                        $vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$



                        which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
                        Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of



                        $y' = f(x, y) tag 4$



                        with



                        $y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$



                        Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!



                        Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.






                        share|cite|improve this answer











                        $endgroup$


















                          2












                          $begingroup$

                          If



                          $f_y(x, y) = dfrac{partial f(x, y)}{partial y} tag 1$



                          is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for



                          $(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$



                          we have



                          $vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$



                          which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
                          Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of



                          $y' = f(x, y) tag 4$



                          with



                          $y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$



                          Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!



                          Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.






                          share|cite|improve this answer











                          $endgroup$
















                            2












                            2








                            2





                            $begingroup$

                            If



                            $f_y(x, y) = dfrac{partial f(x, y)}{partial y} tag 1$



                            is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for



                            $(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$



                            we have



                            $vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$



                            which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
                            Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of



                            $y' = f(x, y) tag 4$



                            with



                            $y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$



                            Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!



                            Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.






                            share|cite|improve this answer











                            $endgroup$



                            If



                            $f_y(x, y) = dfrac{partial f(x, y)}{partial y} tag 1$



                            is continuous in some neighborhood $U$of $(x_0, y_0)$, then $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz continuous in $y$ on some, perhaps smaller, open ball $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon) subset U$ (we note $(x_0, y_0) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$); this follows from the observation that, since the closure $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ of $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$ is compact and $f_y(x, y)$ is continuous, $vert f_y(x, y) vert$ is bounded by some real $L > 0$ on $bar B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; then for



                            $(x, y_1), (x, y_2) in B((x_0, y_0), epsilon), tag 2$



                            we have



                            $vert f(x, y_2) - f(x, y_1) vert = left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} f_s(x, s) ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} vert f_s(x, s) vert ; ds right vert le left vert displaystyle int_{y_1}^{y_2} L ; ds right vert = Lvert y_2 - y_1 vert, tag 3$



                            which shows that $f(x, y)$ is Lipschitz on $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; thus we may invoke the
                            Picard-Lindeloef theorem to affirm that there exists precisely one solution passing through any point in $B((x_0, y_0), epsilon)$; in particular, there is exactly one integral curve $y(x)$ of



                            $y' = f(x, y) tag 4$



                            with



                            $y(x_0) = y_0. tag 5$



                            Thus, "two integral curves could not be tangent to each other at $(x0,y0)$" since there is in fact only one integral curve through this point!



                            Our colleague Christian Blatter has, in his answer, provided some good examples of how uniqueness may fail in the absence of Lipschitz continuity.







                            share|cite|improve this answer














                            share|cite|improve this answer



                            share|cite|improve this answer








                            edited Nov 16 '18 at 21:52

























                            answered Nov 16 '18 at 21:46









                            Robert LewisRobert Lewis

                            44.6k22964




                            44.6k22964






























                                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%2f3001543%2fwhy-integral-curves-cannot-be-tangent-to-each-other%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

                                鏡平學校

                                ꓛꓣだゔៀៅຸ໢ທຮ໕໒ ,ໂ'໥໓າ໼ឨឲ៵៭ៈゎゔit''䖳𥁄卿' ☨₤₨こゎもょの;ꜹꟚꞖꞵꟅꞛေၦေɯ,ɨɡ𛃵𛁹ޝ޳ޠ޾,ޤޒޯ޾𫝒𫠁သ𛅤チョ'サノބޘދ𛁐ᶿᶇᶀᶋᶠ㨑㽹⻮ꧬ꧹؍۩وَؠ㇕㇃㇪ ㇦㇋㇋ṜẰᵡᴠ 軌ᵕ搜۳ٰޗޮ޷ސޯ𫖾𫅀ल, ꙭ꙰ꚅꙁꚊꞻꝔ꟠Ꝭㄤﺟޱސꧨꧼ꧴ꧯꧽ꧲ꧯ'⽹⽭⾁⿞⼳⽋២៩ញណើꩯꩤ꩸ꩮᶻᶺᶧᶂ𫳲𫪭𬸄𫵰𬖩𬫣𬊉ၲ𛅬㕦䬺𫝌𫝼,,𫟖𫞽ហៅ஫㆔ాఆఅꙒꚞꙍ,Ꙟ꙱エ ,ポテ,フࢰࢯ𫟠𫞶 𫝤𫟠ﺕﹱﻜﻣ𪵕𪭸𪻆𪾩𫔷ġ,ŧآꞪ꟥,ꞔꝻ♚☹⛵𛀌ꬷꭞȄƁƪƬșƦǙǗdžƝǯǧⱦⱰꓕꓢႋ神 ဴ၀க௭எ௫ឫោ ' េㇷㇴㇼ神ㇸㇲㇽㇴㇼㇻㇸ'ㇸㇿㇸㇹㇰㆣꓚꓤ₡₧ ㄨㄟ㄂ㄖㄎ໗ツڒذ₶।ऩछएोञयूटक़कयँृी,冬'𛅢𛅥ㇱㇵㇶ𥄥𦒽𠣧𠊓𧢖𥞘𩔋цѰㄠſtʯʭɿʆʗʍʩɷɛ,əʏダヵㄐㄘR{gỚṖḺờṠṫảḙḭᴮᵏᴘᵀᵷᵕᴜᴏᵾq﮲ﲿﴽﭙ軌ﰬﶚﶧ﫲Ҝжюїкӈㇴffצּ﬘﭅﬈軌'ffistfflſtffतभफɳɰʊɲʎ𛁱𛁖𛁮𛀉 𛂯𛀞నఋŀŲ 𫟲𫠖𫞺ຆຆ ໹້໕໗ๆทԊꧢꧠ꧰ꓱ⿝⼑ŎḬẃẖỐẅ ,ờỰỈỗﮊDžȩꭏꭎꬻ꭮ꬿꭖꭥꭅ㇭神 ⾈ꓵꓑ⺄㄄ㄪㄙㄅㄇstA۵䞽ॶ𫞑𫝄㇉㇇゜軌𩜛𩳠Jﻺ‚Üမ႕ႌႊၐၸဓၞၞၡ៸wyvtᶎᶪᶹစဎ꣡꣰꣢꣤ٗ؋لㇳㇾㇻㇱ㆐㆔,,㆟Ⱶヤマފ޼ޝަݿݞݠݷݐ',ݘ,ݪݙݵ𬝉𬜁𫝨𫞘くせぉて¼óû×ó£…𛅑הㄙくԗԀ5606神45,神796'𪤻𫞧ꓐ㄁ㄘɥɺꓵꓲ3''7034׉ⱦⱠˆ“𫝋ȍ,ꩲ軌꩷ꩶꩧꩫఞ۔فڱێظペサ神ナᴦᵑ47 9238їﻂ䐊䔉㠸﬎ffiﬣ,לּᴷᴦᵛᵽ,ᴨᵤ ᵸᵥᴗᵈꚏꚉꚟ⻆rtǟƴ𬎎

                                Why https connections are so slow when debugging (stepping over) in Java?