8

Assuming I got some non-linear differential operator $D$, given by $(\partial_xu(x,t))^2-\partial_tu(x,t)=0$, what would its linearization (around a solution $\tilde u$) be?

So far I thought of something like a Fréchet derivative, i.e. $Du = D\tilde u + A(u-\tilde u)+o(u-\tilde u)$, where $D\tilde u$ would vanish because $\tilde u$ is a solution. However, I don't see how this $A$ could be written as a "usual" DE so I can determine its symbol.

After some research, I guess this question could also be seen as a follow-up question to this comment.

Peter
  • 607

1 Answers1

10

If you want to linearise a (partial) differential equation around a solution $\tilde{u}$, your goal is to investigate how the equation (or, to be more precise, its solutions) behave 'around' $\tilde{u}$. Therefore, the most straightforward thing to do is to substitute \begin{equation} u = \tilde{u} + \epsilon v, \end{equation} where $\epsilon$ is some small number. We call the term $\epsilon v$ a perturbation of $\tilde{u}$.

When you perform this substitution in your PDE, you get \begin{equation} (\partial_x \tilde{u})^2 + 2 \epsilon (\partial_x \tilde{u})(\partial_x v) + \epsilon^2 (\partial_x v)^2 - \partial_t \tilde{u} - \epsilon \partial_t v = 0, \end{equation} which we can rewrite as \begin{equation} \left[(\partial_x \tilde{u})^2 - \partial_t \tilde{u}\right] + \epsilon\left[2 (\partial_x \tilde{u})(\partial_x v) - \partial_t v\right] + \epsilon^2 (\partial_x v)^2 = 0 \end{equation} Because $\tilde{u}$ is assumed to be a solution to the original PDE, the first term $\left[(\partial_x \tilde{u})^2 - \partial_t \tilde{u}\right]$ is zero by definition. Now, the 'linearisation' part of the procedure comes from the observation that if $\epsilon$ is very small (i.e. very close to zero), then $\epsilon^2$ is much smaller than $\epsilon$. Therefore, it seems a good approximation to neglect the term $\epsilon^2 (\partial_x v)^2$, because it is much smaller than the term $\epsilon\left[2 (\partial_x \tilde{u})(\partial_x v) - \partial_t v\right]$. Actually, you can take $\epsilon$ as small as you want, or in other words, study the system as close to $\tilde{u}$ as you want. The 'linearisation' of the original PDE is therefore given by the PDE \begin{equation} 2 (\partial_x \tilde{u})(\partial_x v) - \partial_t v = 0. \end{equation} If we rewrite this in terms of a differential operator, we get \begin{equation} A(\tilde{u}) v = 0, \end{equation} with the operator $A(\tilde{u})$ (which depends explicitly on $\tilde{u}$ !) given by \begin{equation} A(\tilde{u}) = 2 (\partial_x \tilde{u})\,\partial_x - \partial_t. \end{equation} Note that $A$ is a linear operator, in the sense that it acts linearly on $v$.

Frits Veerman
  • 8,271
  • 2
  • 17
  • 25
  • Is this process above valid for any PDE? For example, $u_{tt}-u_{xx}=u-u^3$$. – Guilherme Apr 22 '20 at 12:13
  • You can apply the process to any PDE, as long as you can find an expression for the linearisation of every term. Be careful with non-smooth terms, though: take for example $u_{tt} - u_{xx} = | u|$, and try to linearise this around the trivial solution $u=0$. – Frits Veerman Oct 20 '20 at 12:51