Take the 2-minute tour ×
Mathematica Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for users of Mathematica. It's 100% free, no registration required.

I am trying to solve

-D[((α + γ/2)*a + β/(2*a) - R*a^3)*p[a], a] + 0.5*D[(γ*a^2 + β)*p[a], {a, 2}] == 0

with DSolve, but it does not work. If I let R = 0, then I am able to obtain an explicit solution for p[a].

DSolve[
    -(-3 a^2 R + α - β/(2 a^2) + γ/2) p[a] - 
    (-a^3 R + β/(2 a) + a (α + γ/2)) Derivative[1][p][a] + 
    0.5 (2 γ p[a] + 4 a γ Derivative[1][p][a] + (β + a^2 γ) (p^′′)[a]) == 0, 
  p[a], a]

Can someone kindly help me on this.

share|improve this question

1 Answer 1

up vote 0 down vote accepted

I evaluated

DSolve[-2 D[((α + γ/2) a + β/(2 a) - R a^3)*p[a], a] + D[(γ a^2 + β) p[a], {a, 2}] == 0, 
  p[a], a]

which is equivalent to the first formulation of your problem, but which eliminates the approximate coefficient (i.e., 0.5). Mathematica V9.0.1 returned

{{p[a] -> 
  a*E^(-((a^2*R)/γ) + ((R*β + α*γ - γ^2)*Log[β + a^2*γ])/γ^2)*C[1] + 
  a*E^(-((a^2*R)/γ) + ((R*β + α*γ - γ^2)*Log[β + a^2*γ])/γ^2)*C[2]*
    Integrate[E^((R*K[1]^2)/γ - ((R*β + α*γ)*Log[β + γ*K[1]^2])/γ^2)/K[1], 
      {K[1], 1, a}]}}

Does this result work for you, or do you find it unsatisfactory? If unsatisfactory, please explain why.

share|improve this answer
    
thanks a lot for this....I did not know that I needed to get rid of the 0.5. Regards! –  Stoc Jun 12 at 15:00
    
although it should be possible to solve this ODE by hand...is it possible that Mathematica can show me the steps involved? As wolframalpha does? –  Stoc Jun 12 at 15:16
    
@Stoc. I don't know a way to instruct Mathematica to show how it gets its results in a step-by-step way. My understanding is that its methods are not much like the ones humans use and would be unreadable to us humans. I have heard that Wolfram|Alpha can produce step-by-step results, but have no personal experience with that. –  m_goldberg Jun 12 at 20:16
1  
@Stoc. I think I should mention that it's not so much a matter of "need[ing] to get rid of the 0.5", but of replacing any approximate numbers with integers or rationals. Changing 0.5 to 1/2 would have worked just as well as multiplying by integer 2. –  m_goldberg Jun 12 at 20:22

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.