Jump to content

Talk:Sturm separation theorem

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The printable version is no longer supported and may have rendering errors. Please update your browser bookmarks and please use the default browser print function instead.

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Sturm separation theorem/CommentsTalk: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 The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.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, ∞ 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]