Solving Integral Equation by Converting to Differential Equations The Next CEO of Stack OverflowAre there methods to solve coupled integral and integro-differential equations?Voltera equationSolve integral equation by converting to differential equationHow can I solve this integral equation by converting it to a differential equationConverting a integral equation to differential equationSolving integro-differential equation - numericallySolution of Differential equation as an integral equationConverting Differential Operator to Integral Equationreference for converting an integro-differential equation to a differential algebraic equationSolving second order ordinary differential equation with variable constants

How do we know the LHC results are robust?

Do I need to enable Dev Hub in my PROD Org?

Is there a way to save my career from absolute disaster?

Why am I allowed to create multiple unique pointers from a single object?

SQL Server 2016 - excessive memory grant warning on poor performing query

Is there a difference between "Fahrstuhl" and "Aufzug"

What connection does MS Office have to Netscape Navigator?

What flight has the highest ratio of time difference to flight time?

multiple labels for a single equation

What does "Its cash flow is deeply negative" mean?

Inappropriate reference requests from Journal reviewers

Solving Integral Equation by Converting to Differential Equations

Novel about a guy who is possessed by the divine essence and the world ends?

What does convergence in distribution "in the Gromov–Hausdorff" sense mean?

WOW air has ceased operation, can I get my tickets refunded?

How does the mv command work with external drives?

calculus parametric curve length

Why does standard notation not preserve intervals (visually)

Would a galaxy be visible from outside, but nearby?

How fast would a person need to move to trick the eye?

How to transpose the 1st and -1th levels of arbitrarily nested array?

Is it possible to search for a directory/file combination?

Sending manuscript to multiple publishers

Can I equip Skullclamp on a creature I am sacrificing?



Solving Integral Equation by Converting to Differential Equations



The Next CEO of Stack OverflowAre there methods to solve coupled integral and integro-differential equations?Voltera equationSolve integral equation by converting to differential equationHow can I solve this integral equation by converting it to a differential equationConverting a integral equation to differential equationSolving integro-differential equation - numericallySolution of Differential equation as an integral equationConverting Differential Operator to Integral Equationreference for converting an integro-differential equation to a differential algebraic equationSolving second order ordinary differential equation with variable constants










2












$begingroup$


Consider the problem



$$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?










share|cite|improve this question









$endgroup$
















    2












    $begingroup$


    Consider the problem



    $$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



    How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?










    share|cite|improve this question









    $endgroup$














      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Consider the problem



      $$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



      How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?










      share|cite|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Consider the problem



      $$phi(x) = x - int_0^x(x-s)phi(s),ds$$



      How can we solve this by converting to a differential equation?







      ordinary-differential-equations integral-equations integro-differential-equations






      share|cite|improve this question













      share|cite|improve this question











      share|cite|improve this question




      share|cite|improve this question










      asked 5 hours ago









      LightningStrikeLightningStrike

      555




      555




















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          4












          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrmds$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin(x)$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago


















          1












          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $$phi '(x)=1-int_0^xphi (s)ds$$



          Differentiate again:



          $$phi ''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            3 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago












          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%2f3167442%2fsolving-integral-equation-by-converting-to-differential-equations%23new-answer', 'question_page');

          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          4












          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrmds$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin(x)$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago















          4












          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrmds$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$












          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin(x)$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago













          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrmds$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          We have that
          $$phi(x)=x-xint_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s + int_0^x s phi(s)mathrmds$$
          From this, we can see that $phi(0)=0$.
          We can differentiate both sides and use the product rule and the FTC1 to get:
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds -x phi(x)+xphi(x)$$
          $$phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmd s$$
          From this, we can see that $phi'(0)=1$. We can differentiate it again:
          $$phi''(x)=-phi(x)$$
          Which is an alternative definition of the $sin$ function.







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 4 hours ago

























          answered 4 hours ago









          BotondBotond

          6,49331034




          6,49331034











          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin(x)$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago
















          • $begingroup$
            In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin(x)$ because of the original equation.
            $endgroup$
            – Peter Foreman
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
            $endgroup$
            – LightningStrike
            4 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds$?
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            4 hours ago















          $begingroup$
          In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin(x)$ because of the original equation.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Foreman
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          In fact, the only valid solution for $phi(x)$ is $sin(x)$ because of the original equation.
          $endgroup$
          – Peter Foreman
          4 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          4 hours ago





          $begingroup$
          @PeterForemann Yes. I calculated $phi(0)$ and $phi'(0)$ from the integral equation to avoid the lengthy substitution and integration.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          4 hours ago













          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
          $endgroup$
          – LightningStrike
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Thank you for your answer! Do you mind if I ask how you got $phi ''(x) = -phi (x)$ by differentiating $phi ' (x)$? I don't understand the steps taken.
          $endgroup$
          – LightningStrike
          4 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds$?
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          4 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          @LightningStrike Do you see how did I get $phi'(x)=1-int_0^x phi(s) mathrmds$?
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          4 hours ago











          1












          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $$phi '(x)=1-int_0^xphi (s)ds$$



          Differentiate again:



          $$phi ''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            3 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago
















          1












          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $$phi '(x)=1-int_0^xphi (s)ds$$



          Differentiate again:



          $$phi ''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$








          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            3 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago














          1












          1








          1





          $begingroup$

          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $$phi '(x)=1-int_0^xphi (s)ds$$



          Differentiate again:



          $$phi ''(x)=-phi (x)$$






          share|cite|improve this answer











          $endgroup$



          Differentiating both sides using Leibniz rule :



          $$phi '(x)=1-int_0^xphi (s)ds$$



          Differentiate again:



          $$phi ''(x)=-phi (x)$$







          share|cite|improve this answer














          share|cite|improve this answer



          share|cite|improve this answer








          edited 4 hours ago

























          answered 4 hours ago









          logologo

          1048




          1048







          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            3 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago













          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago










          • $begingroup$
            may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
            $endgroup$
            – logo
            3 hours ago











          • $begingroup$
            I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
            $endgroup$
            – Botond
            3 hours ago








          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          3 hours ago




          $begingroup$
          Your answer is great, but Leibniz's rule is an overkill here, because it requires partial derivatives and the proof is based on measure theory.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          3 hours ago












          $begingroup$
          may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
          $endgroup$
          – logo
          3 hours ago





          $begingroup$
          may be you are right...but this is a common technique in an introductory course of integral equations.
          $endgroup$
          – logo
          3 hours ago













          $begingroup$
          I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          3 hours ago





          $begingroup$
          I didn't take any course in integral equations, but we used Leibniz's rule during a physics course (without a proof), and it's a really useful tool to have. And we don't really know which is the appropriate solution to the questioner.
          $endgroup$
          – Botond
          3 hours ago


















          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%2f3167442%2fsolving-integral-equation-by-converting-to-differential-equations%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

          Dapidodigma demeter Subspecies | Notae | Tabula navigationisDapidodigmaAfrotropical Butterflies: Lycaenidae - Subtribe IolainaAmplifica

          Constantinus Vanšenkin Nexus externi | Tabula navigationisБольшая российская энциклопедияAmplifica

          Vas sanguineum Index Historia | Divisio | Constructio anatomica | Vasorum sanguineorum morbi (angiopathiae) | Notae | Nexus interniTabula navigationisAmplifica