Separation of Variables
Under the assumption that the steady-state temperatures
are symmetric about the
-axis, dependence on angle
can be dispensed with. Hence,
and a Maple-generated variable-separation is obtained with
> |
 |
![Typesetting:-mprintslash([`&where`(u(rho, `ϕ`) = `*`(_F1(rho), `*`(_F2(`ϕ`))), [{diff(_F1(rho), `$`(rho, 2)) = `+`(`/`(`*`(_F1(rho), `*`(_c[1])), `*`(`^`(rho, 2))), `-`(`/`(`*`(2, `*`(di...](/view.aspx?SI=5121/R25-EigenvalueProblemsforODEs-Part3_54.gif) |
(6.1.1) |
Equation
<$/-I%diffGF$6$-F96$F..." align="center" border="0"> shows that a variable separation solution of the form
> |
 |
exists, and provides the ordinary differential equations the functions
and
must satisfy. We now proceed to obtain these same results from first principles.
Under the separation assumption, Laplace's equation assumes the simpler form
> |
 |
Moving all terms in
to the right, we then have
> |
 |
Introduction of Bernoulli's separation constant
then leads to the ordinary differential equations
> |
 |
We are primarily interested in the second of these equations - it will become Legendre's equation after a mild rearrangement and change of variables. First, write the equation in the form
> |
 |
and then
> |
 |
Now, make the change of variables
with
becoming
This is done in Maple with
> |
 |
Further simplifying, we have
> |
 |
which is the standard form of Legendre's equation, the self-adjoint form of which would be
The Sturm-Liouville Eigenvalue Problem
The eigenvalue problem that embeds Legendre's equation is singular. The boundary conditions are simply that
must be continuous on the interval
Passage from the general solution
> |
 |
to the eigenfunctions is surprisingly more difficult than it was for Bessel's equation. Because we are in extended typesetting mode, the functions
and
are displayed as
and
respectively. (Were we in extended typesetting mode during our earlier discussion of Bessel's equation, Maple would have displayed
as
)
When solving Laplace's equation in the cylinder, it was relatively easy to use continuity to restrict the general solution to just
, the Bessel function bounded on the interval
and to determine the eigenvalues
from the zeros of
We began the process by ruling out the Bessel function of the second kind because we could tell from a graph that all such functions were unbounded at the origin.
We will try to rule out the function
in a similar way, but we will find the process more difficult than it was for the Bessel function. For example, consider
> |
 |
from which it is clear that the function is unbounded at the endpoints
because of the logarithms. But this is obvious for
, an integer. It is a bit more difficult to divine the endpoint behavior for general values of
. For example, we can calculate the values
> |
 |
which suggest
may indeed be unbounded at
for general values of
. Figure 1 contains graphs of the real and imaginary parts of
with
in the open interval
and
in the interval
.
> |

 |
|
> |

 |
|
Figure 1 Real and imaginary parts of for suggesting is unbounded on
|
From Figure 1(a) especially, we conclude that
is unbounded for general values of
. On the basis of this conclusion, we set
to zero in the general solution of Legendre's equation, and turn our attention to
the Legendre function of the first kind.
We first show that for general (real) values of 
is unbounded. Sample calculations include
> |
 |
To illustrate this behavior for multiple values of
, we define the following piecewise function.
> |
 |
If
is large, then a graph of
will show a point at
for that value of
. If
is "not large" then a graph of
will show the value of
We can control the evaluation points for a graph of
if we define the uniform random variable
via
> |
 |
then create a uniform but random sample of
-values that includes the integers in the interval
.
> |
 |
The graph of
in Figure 2 shows that virtually all evaluations of
are large in magnitude.
> |

 |
|
Figure 2 Stylized graph of for
|
However, it also suggests that
for integer
. For noninteger
,
is unbounded so that the bounded solutions of Legendre's equation
> |
 |
will be the eigenfunctions
with
> |
 |
 |
(6.2.1) |
an integer. Hence, the eigenvalues will be
> |
 |
that is,
The first few eigenfunctions are
> |
 |
which are the Legendre polynomials
normalized so that
These polynomials are graphed in Figure 3.
> |
 |
|
Figure 3 The Legendre polynomials
|
That the function
reduces to the polynomial
for
can be seen from the following calculations.
For noninteger
, we first obtain the formal power series expansion of
via
> |
 |
then extract the general term in the first series with
> |
 |
The pochhammer symbol
or "rising factorial" for
complex generalizes to
for complex
If
is a nonpositive integer, then
Making this transformation and setting
in the general term of the first series for
gives the general coefficient
> |
 |
For large
this coefficient is asymptotic to
suggesting that
is unbounded since the series under consideration will behave like the harmonic series at
. We can confirm this behavior by comparing the general coefficient with
for large
. In the limit we find the ratio tends to
> |
 |
which is finite for
not an integer. To see that for integer
the series for
reduces to a polynomial, examine the recursion formula for its coefficients. This is most efficiently obtained in Maple via
> |
 |
from which it becomes clear that
when
Hence,
Therefore,
is a polynomial of degree
for .
Orthogonality of the Eigenfunctions
The classical proof of the orthogonality of the eigenfunctions of Legendre's equation is based on integration by parts. The self-adjoint form of the equation, namely,
is written once for an eigenfunction
and once for
The first equation is multiplied by
and the second, by
, and the difference of the two products is integrated over
. Integration by parts is applied to the terms containing the derivatives, which then vanish as we can see from the following sketch. Integrals of the terms containing the derivatives can be written as
> |
 |
Integration by parts and subtraction then lead to
> |
 |
What remains is
If the eigenvalues
and
are different, then
which implies orthogonality of
and
.
Thus,
for
as we see for
via the matrix of evaluations below.
> |
 |
From this matrix we also infer that
, a result Maple cannot show in general, as we see from
> |
 |