Why integral curves cannot be tangent to each other?











up vote
6
down vote

favorite
4












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


















  • 1




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










  • 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.
    – fyang
    Nov 16 at 19:39










  • By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 19:41






  • 1




    What is the example ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 20:03






  • 1




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















up vote
6
down vote

favorite
4












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


















  • 1




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










  • 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.
    – fyang
    Nov 16 at 19:39










  • By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 19:41






  • 1




    What is the example ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 20:03






  • 1




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













up vote
6
down vote

favorite
4









up vote
6
down vote

favorite
4






4





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













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!







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 at 19:24









fyang

334




334








  • 1




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










  • 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.
    – fyang
    Nov 16 at 19:39










  • By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 19:41






  • 1




    What is the example ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 20:03






  • 1




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














  • 1




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










  • 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.
    – fyang
    Nov 16 at 19:39










  • By what magic could the curves diverge ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 19:41






  • 1




    What is the example ?
    – Yves Daoust
    Nov 16 at 20:03






  • 1




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








1




1




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




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












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.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39




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.
– fyang
Nov 16 at 19:39












By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41




By what magic could the curves diverge ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 19:41




1




1




What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03




What is the example ?
– Yves Daoust
Nov 16 at 20:03




1




1




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




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










3 Answers
3






active

oldest

votes

















up vote
6
down vote



accepted










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




























    up vote
    7
    down vote













    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




























      up vote
      2
      down vote













      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























        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',
        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








        up vote
        6
        down vote



        accepted










        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

























          up vote
          6
          down vote



          accepted










          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























            up vote
            6
            down vote



            accepted







            up vote
            6
            down vote



            accepted






            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












            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 at 20:51









            klirk

            2,215428




            2,215428






















                up vote
                7
                down vote













                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

























                  up vote
                  7
                  down vote













                  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























                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote










                    up vote
                    7
                    down vote









                    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












                    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 at 20:03









                    Christian Blatter

                    170k7111325




                    170k7111325






















                        up vote
                        2
                        down vote













                        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



























                          up vote
                          2
                          down vote













                          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

























                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote










                            up vote
                            2
                            down vote









                            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














                            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 at 21:52

























                            answered Nov 16 at 21:46









                            Robert Lewis

                            41.9k22760




                            41.9k22760






























                                 

                                draft saved


                                draft discarded



















































                                 


                                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

                                Сан-Квентин

                                Алькесар

                                Josef Freinademetz