Solve a differential equation in a radioactive decay system
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a radioactive decay system to solve for $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ (no need for $z(t)$):
$$begin{cases}x'=-lambda x\
y'=lambda x-mu y\
z'=mu yend{cases}$$
with the initial conditions $x(0)=1,y(0)=0,z(0)=0$.
I found $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$, but $y(t)$ is proving to be difficult. I have tried subbing in $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$ so that we have a linear DE in $y$:
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
but ended up getting a giant solution which seems very wrong.
Is this the right approach or no?
calculus differential-equations physics
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a radioactive decay system to solve for $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ (no need for $z(t)$):
$$begin{cases}x'=-lambda x\
y'=lambda x-mu y\
z'=mu yend{cases}$$
with the initial conditions $x(0)=1,y(0)=0,z(0)=0$.
I found $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$, but $y(t)$ is proving to be difficult. I have tried subbing in $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$ so that we have a linear DE in $y$:
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
but ended up getting a giant solution which seems very wrong.
Is this the right approach or no?
calculus differential-equations physics
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
I have a radioactive decay system to solve for $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ (no need for $z(t)$):
$$begin{cases}x'=-lambda x\
y'=lambda x-mu y\
z'=mu yend{cases}$$
with the initial conditions $x(0)=1,y(0)=0,z(0)=0$.
I found $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$, but $y(t)$ is proving to be difficult. I have tried subbing in $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$ so that we have a linear DE in $y$:
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
but ended up getting a giant solution which seems very wrong.
Is this the right approach or no?
calculus differential-equations physics
I have a radioactive decay system to solve for $x(t)$ and $y(t)$ (no need for $z(t)$):
$$begin{cases}x'=-lambda x\
y'=lambda x-mu y\
z'=mu yend{cases}$$
with the initial conditions $x(0)=1,y(0)=0,z(0)=0$.
I found $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$, but $y(t)$ is proving to be difficult. I have tried subbing in $x(t) = e^{-lambda t}$ so that we have a linear DE in $y$:
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
but ended up getting a giant solution which seems very wrong.
Is this the right approach or no?
calculus differential-equations physics
calculus differential-equations physics
edited Nov 20 at 6:46
Robert Z
91.6k1058129
91.6k1058129
asked Nov 20 at 6:30
Sonjov
1038
1038
add a comment |
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The differential equation
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
is linear non-homogeneous with constant coefficients. The general solution is
$$y'(t)=Ce^{-mu t}+y_p(t)$$
where $C$ is an arbitrary constant and $y_p$ is a particular solution. As regards $y_p$ we are supposed to distinguish two cases 1) $lambdanot=mu$ and 2) $lambda=mu$.
As a reference see the method of undetermined coefficients.
Once we have $y$, we can solve $z'=mu y$ by a straightforward integration.
Can you take it from here?
We are supposed to assume $lambda ne mu$. Should have said that
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 6:40
Then it is easier. $y_p=Ae^{-lambda t}$ where $A$ is a constant to be found. Plug this formula into the ODE and find $A$. Later use the initial condition $y(0)=0$ to find $C$.
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:43
1
You do not have to solve for $z$, as the sum of the derivatives is zero, so $x+y+z=1$.
– LutzL
Nov 20 at 9:50
@LutzL Good point!!
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 10:47
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
$$d(e^{mu t}y)=lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t} dt text{ }[text{I.F.} = e^{mu t}]$$
$$text{Integrating, } e^{mu t}y=frac{lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t}}{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Putting } y(0)=0, 0=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Hence, } y(t)=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda}(e^{(mu - lambda)t}-1)e^{-mu t}$$
2
My suggestions are not useful anymore if one has already the full solution... :-(
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:59
This is what I did originally anyway, there was just another part to the question that turned out horribly wrong so I assumed the original solution was wrong but I guess not
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 7:54
@Sonjov Next time you should post your attempt. May I know the other part of the question?
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 14:49
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
3
down vote
The differential equation
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
is linear non-homogeneous with constant coefficients. The general solution is
$$y'(t)=Ce^{-mu t}+y_p(t)$$
where $C$ is an arbitrary constant and $y_p$ is a particular solution. As regards $y_p$ we are supposed to distinguish two cases 1) $lambdanot=mu$ and 2) $lambda=mu$.
As a reference see the method of undetermined coefficients.
Once we have $y$, we can solve $z'=mu y$ by a straightforward integration.
Can you take it from here?
We are supposed to assume $lambda ne mu$. Should have said that
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 6:40
Then it is easier. $y_p=Ae^{-lambda t}$ where $A$ is a constant to be found. Plug this formula into the ODE and find $A$. Later use the initial condition $y(0)=0$ to find $C$.
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:43
1
You do not have to solve for $z$, as the sum of the derivatives is zero, so $x+y+z=1$.
– LutzL
Nov 20 at 9:50
@LutzL Good point!!
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 10:47
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
The differential equation
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
is linear non-homogeneous with constant coefficients. The general solution is
$$y'(t)=Ce^{-mu t}+y_p(t)$$
where $C$ is an arbitrary constant and $y_p$ is a particular solution. As regards $y_p$ we are supposed to distinguish two cases 1) $lambdanot=mu$ and 2) $lambda=mu$.
As a reference see the method of undetermined coefficients.
Once we have $y$, we can solve $z'=mu y$ by a straightforward integration.
Can you take it from here?
We are supposed to assume $lambda ne mu$. Should have said that
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 6:40
Then it is easier. $y_p=Ae^{-lambda t}$ where $A$ is a constant to be found. Plug this formula into the ODE and find $A$. Later use the initial condition $y(0)=0$ to find $C$.
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:43
1
You do not have to solve for $z$, as the sum of the derivatives is zero, so $x+y+z=1$.
– LutzL
Nov 20 at 9:50
@LutzL Good point!!
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 10:47
add a comment |
up vote
3
down vote
up vote
3
down vote
The differential equation
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
is linear non-homogeneous with constant coefficients. The general solution is
$$y'(t)=Ce^{-mu t}+y_p(t)$$
where $C$ is an arbitrary constant and $y_p$ is a particular solution. As regards $y_p$ we are supposed to distinguish two cases 1) $lambdanot=mu$ and 2) $lambda=mu$.
As a reference see the method of undetermined coefficients.
Once we have $y$, we can solve $z'=mu y$ by a straightforward integration.
Can you take it from here?
The differential equation
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
is linear non-homogeneous with constant coefficients. The general solution is
$$y'(t)=Ce^{-mu t}+y_p(t)$$
where $C$ is an arbitrary constant and $y_p$ is a particular solution. As regards $y_p$ we are supposed to distinguish two cases 1) $lambdanot=mu$ and 2) $lambda=mu$.
As a reference see the method of undetermined coefficients.
Once we have $y$, we can solve $z'=mu y$ by a straightforward integration.
Can you take it from here?
edited Nov 20 at 6:57
answered Nov 20 at 6:34
Robert Z
91.6k1058129
91.6k1058129
We are supposed to assume $lambda ne mu$. Should have said that
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 6:40
Then it is easier. $y_p=Ae^{-lambda t}$ where $A$ is a constant to be found. Plug this formula into the ODE and find $A$. Later use the initial condition $y(0)=0$ to find $C$.
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:43
1
You do not have to solve for $z$, as the sum of the derivatives is zero, so $x+y+z=1$.
– LutzL
Nov 20 at 9:50
@LutzL Good point!!
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 10:47
add a comment |
We are supposed to assume $lambda ne mu$. Should have said that
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 6:40
Then it is easier. $y_p=Ae^{-lambda t}$ where $A$ is a constant to be found. Plug this formula into the ODE and find $A$. Later use the initial condition $y(0)=0$ to find $C$.
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:43
1
You do not have to solve for $z$, as the sum of the derivatives is zero, so $x+y+z=1$.
– LutzL
Nov 20 at 9:50
@LutzL Good point!!
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 10:47
We are supposed to assume $lambda ne mu$. Should have said that
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 6:40
We are supposed to assume $lambda ne mu$. Should have said that
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 6:40
Then it is easier. $y_p=Ae^{-lambda t}$ where $A$ is a constant to be found. Plug this formula into the ODE and find $A$. Later use the initial condition $y(0)=0$ to find $C$.
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:43
Then it is easier. $y_p=Ae^{-lambda t}$ where $A$ is a constant to be found. Plug this formula into the ODE and find $A$. Later use the initial condition $y(0)=0$ to find $C$.
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:43
1
1
You do not have to solve for $z$, as the sum of the derivatives is zero, so $x+y+z=1$.
– LutzL
Nov 20 at 9:50
You do not have to solve for $z$, as the sum of the derivatives is zero, so $x+y+z=1$.
– LutzL
Nov 20 at 9:50
@LutzL Good point!!
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 10:47
@LutzL Good point!!
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 10:47
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
$$d(e^{mu t}y)=lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t} dt text{ }[text{I.F.} = e^{mu t}]$$
$$text{Integrating, } e^{mu t}y=frac{lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t}}{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Putting } y(0)=0, 0=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Hence, } y(t)=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda}(e^{(mu - lambda)t}-1)e^{-mu t}$$
2
My suggestions are not useful anymore if one has already the full solution... :-(
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:59
This is what I did originally anyway, there was just another part to the question that turned out horribly wrong so I assumed the original solution was wrong but I guess not
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 7:54
@Sonjov Next time you should post your attempt. May I know the other part of the question?
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 14:49
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
$$d(e^{mu t}y)=lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t} dt text{ }[text{I.F.} = e^{mu t}]$$
$$text{Integrating, } e^{mu t}y=frac{lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t}}{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Putting } y(0)=0, 0=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Hence, } y(t)=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda}(e^{(mu - lambda)t}-1)e^{-mu t}$$
2
My suggestions are not useful anymore if one has already the full solution... :-(
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:59
This is what I did originally anyway, there was just another part to the question that turned out horribly wrong so I assumed the original solution was wrong but I guess not
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 7:54
@Sonjov Next time you should post your attempt. May I know the other part of the question?
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 14:49
add a comment |
up vote
1
down vote
up vote
1
down vote
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
$$d(e^{mu t}y)=lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t} dt text{ }[text{I.F.} = e^{mu t}]$$
$$text{Integrating, } e^{mu t}y=frac{lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t}}{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Putting } y(0)=0, 0=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Hence, } y(t)=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda}(e^{(mu - lambda)t}-1)e^{-mu t}$$
$$y'+mu y=lambda e^{-lambda t}$$
$$d(e^{mu t}y)=lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t} dt text{ }[text{I.F.} = e^{mu t}]$$
$$text{Integrating, } e^{mu t}y=frac{lambda e^{(mu - lambda)t}}{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Putting } y(0)=0, 0=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda} + C$$
$$text{Hence, } y(t)=frac{lambda }{mu - lambda}(e^{(mu - lambda)t}-1)e^{-mu t}$$
answered Nov 20 at 6:45
Offlaw
2649
2649
2
My suggestions are not useful anymore if one has already the full solution... :-(
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:59
This is what I did originally anyway, there was just another part to the question that turned out horribly wrong so I assumed the original solution was wrong but I guess not
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 7:54
@Sonjov Next time you should post your attempt. May I know the other part of the question?
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 14:49
add a comment |
2
My suggestions are not useful anymore if one has already the full solution... :-(
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:59
This is what I did originally anyway, there was just another part to the question that turned out horribly wrong so I assumed the original solution was wrong but I guess not
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 7:54
@Sonjov Next time you should post your attempt. May I know the other part of the question?
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 14:49
2
2
My suggestions are not useful anymore if one has already the full solution... :-(
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:59
My suggestions are not useful anymore if one has already the full solution... :-(
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 6:59
This is what I did originally anyway, there was just another part to the question that turned out horribly wrong so I assumed the original solution was wrong but I guess not
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 7:54
This is what I did originally anyway, there was just another part to the question that turned out horribly wrong so I assumed the original solution was wrong but I guess not
– Sonjov
Nov 20 at 7:54
@Sonjov Next time you should post your attempt. May I know the other part of the question?
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 14:49
@Sonjov Next time you should post your attempt. May I know the other part of the question?
– Robert Z
Nov 20 at 14:49
add a comment |
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.
Some of your past answers have not been well-received, and you're in danger of being blocked from answering.
Please pay close attention to the following guidance:
- 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.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3006022%2fsolve-a-differential-equation-in-a-radioactive-decay-system%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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