Jump to content

Talk:Sturm separation theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Rjones30 (talk | contribs) at 14:19, 18 July 2017 (Critique of proof). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
WikiProject iconMathematics B‑class Low‑priority
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of mathematics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
BThis article has been rated as B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
LowThis article has been rated as Low-priority on the project's priority scale.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sturm separation theorem/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Needs more on applications (if there are important ones, change importance field) and perhaps history (where did Sturm publish this). Is there a connection with Sturm-Liouville theory or orthogonal polynomials? -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Last edited at 03:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 02:36, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Critique of proof

This proof of the theorem is faulty. The statement "Since u and v are linearly independent it follows that the Wronskian W[u,v] must satisfy W[u,v](x) != 0 for all x where the differential equation is defined" is not correct. The Wronskian can be zero at a finite number of points, it just cannot be zero everywhere. Take for example, the time-independent Schrodinger equation with an infinite square well, V(x) = 0 on 0<x<π, &infty; elsewhere. The solutions u(x)=sin(x) and v(x)=sin(3x) are clearly linearly independent, but their Wronskian is zero in the middle of the well at x=π/2. Other parts of the proof fall apart after this, but I wanted to make sure I did not misunderstand some of the assumptions here before proposing a major rewrite of this page. Rjones30 (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]