Why can all solutions to the simple harmonic motion equation be written in terms of sines and cosines?Which...
What is the smallest molar volume?
When distributing a Linux kernel driver as source code, what's the difference between Proprietary and GPL license?
Found a major flaw in paper from home university – to which I would like to return
Minimum energy path of a potential energy surface
How can guns be countered by melee combat without raw-ability or exceptional explanations?
Short story about a man betting a group he could tell a story, and one of them would disappear and the others would not notice
How Create a list of the first 10,000 digits of Pi and sum it?
Why don't you get burned by the wood benches in a sauna?
How many copper coins fit inside a cubic foot?
A cancellation property for permutations?
Why don't programs completely uninstall (remove all their files) when I remove them?
Why do single electrical receptacles exist?
How to store all ctor parameters in fields
Cryptic cross... with words
Including proofs of known theorems in master's thesis
Is it possible to detect 100% of SQLi with a simple regex?
Is it common to refer to someone as "Prof. Dr. [LastName]"?
How do I add a strong "onion flavor" to the biryani (in restaurant style)?
What is an explicit bijection in combinatorics?
Have the UK Conservatives lost the working majority and if so, what does this mean?
I am a loser when it comes to jobs, what possibilities do I have?
Was Opportunity's last message to Earth "My battery is low and it's getting dark"?
What happens if both players misunderstand the game state until it's too late?
Build ASCII Podiums
Why can all solutions to the simple harmonic motion equation be written in terms of sines and cosines?
Which trigonometric ratio should be used to describe simple harmonic motion as a function of time?Simple harmonic motion equationPhase angle in simple harmonic motionWhich way should I use to compare the phase of a cosine function with a sine function?Correct way of solving the equation for simple harmonic motionBetter understanding natural resonance frequency and simple harmonic motionWhat is the difference between Non-harmonic oscillation, Anharmonic oscillation and Complex harmonic oscillation?Which equation to use for SHM?When to use sine or cosine when computing simple harmonic motionSimple harmonic motion phase difference problem
$begingroup$
Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.
From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$
Then I read from this site
Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.
harmonic-oscillator
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.
From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$
Then I read from this site
Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.
harmonic-oscillator
$endgroup$
3
$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.
From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$
Then I read from this site
Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.
harmonic-oscillator
$endgroup$
Defining property of SHM (simple harmonic motion)-force experienced at any value of displacement from mean position is directly proportional to it and is directed towards mean position i.e $F=-k(x)$.
From this,
$$mleft(frac{d^2x}{dt^2}right) +kx=0.$$
Then I read from this site
Let us interpret this equation. The second derivative of a function of x plus the function itself (times a constant) is equal to zero. Thus the second derivative of our function must have the same form as the function itself. What readily comes to mind is the sine and cosine function.
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only , they do satisfy the equation but why are they brought in the picture so directly, what I want to ask is why can SHM displacement, velocity etc. be expressed in sin and cosine, I know the "SHM is projection of uniform circular motion" proof, but an algebraic proof would be appreciated.
harmonic-oscillator
harmonic-oscillator
edited 28 mins ago
knzhou
44.3k11121213
44.3k11121213
asked 2 hours ago
ADITYA PRAKASHADITYA PRAKASH
615
615
3
$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago
add a comment |
3
$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago
3
3
$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.
The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.
Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is
- verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and
- check that they're linearly independent.
Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.
If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
$endgroup$
– alephzero
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
7 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only
It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.
It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
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: "151"
};
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: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
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
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462245%2fwhy-can-all-solutions-to-the-simple-harmonic-motion-equation-be-written-in-terms%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
$begingroup$
This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.
The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.
Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is
- verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and
- check that they're linearly independent.
Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.
If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
$endgroup$
– alephzero
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
7 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.
The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.
Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is
- verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and
- check that they're linearly independent.
Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.
If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
$endgroup$
– alephzero
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
7 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.
The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.
Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is
- verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and
- check that they're linearly independent.
Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.
If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.
$endgroup$
This follows from the uniqueness theorem for solutions of ordinary differential equations, which states that for a homogeneous linear ordinary differential equation of order $n$, there are at most $n$ linearly independent solutions.
The upshot of that is that if you have a second-order ODE (like, say, the one for the harmonic oscillator) and you can construct, through whatever means you can come up with, two linearly-independent solutions, then you're guaranteed that any solution of the equation will be a linear combination of your two solutions.
Thus, it doesn't matter at all how it is that you come to the proposal of $sin(omega t)$ and $cos(omega t)$ as prospective solutions: all you need to do is
- verify that they are solutions, i.e. just plug them into the derivatives and see if the result is identically zero; and
- check that they're linearly independent.
Once you do that, the details of how you built your solutions become completely irrelevant. Because of this, I (and many others) generally refer to this as the Method of Divine Inspiration: I can just tell you that the solution came to me in a dream, handed over by a flying mass of spaghetti, and $-$ no matter how contrived or elaborate the solution looks $-$ if it passes the two criteria above, the fact that it is the solution is bulletproof, and no further explanation of how it was built is required.
If this framework is unclear or unfamiliar, then you should sit down with an introductory textbook on differential equations. There's a substantial bit of background that makes this sort of thing clearer, and which simply doesn't fit within this site's format.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 2 hours ago
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
83.4k22204419
83.4k22204419
1
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
$endgroup$
– alephzero
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
7 mins ago
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
$endgroup$
– alephzero
1 hour ago
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
7 mins ago
1
1
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
$endgroup$
– alephzero
1 hour ago
$begingroup$
I still remember the favourite catch-phrase of the lecturer in my ODE course: "They way to solve this equation is to look at it until you see what the solution is". But actually, the OP's equation is linear with constant coefficients, and the general theory of how to solve them is well known. A better answer would be "because $e^{i omega t} = cos omega t + i sin omega t$."
$endgroup$
– alephzero
1 hour ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
14 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
7 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
7 mins ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only
It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.
It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only
It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.
It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only
It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.
It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.
$endgroup$
How can we assume so plainly that it should be sin or cosine only
It's literally just a guess. Those're obvious solutions which can be verified easily, and when they're such straightforward functions, you'll soon just be able to notice them. It's the like when you have an equation like $f'(x)=Ktimes f(x)$, you just see that the solutions are exponentials. After that, you know that for a differential equation like $f^{(n)}(x)=Kf(x)$ you can have upto $n$ solutions, so you aren't missing anything when you consider the sine and cosine.
It's a nice idea to not waste time/effort/space formally solving such equations when the solutions are canonical.
edited 1 hour ago
answered 1 hour ago
ChairChair
4,26672137
4,26672137
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Physics 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.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fphysics.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f462245%2fwhy-can-all-solutions-to-the-simple-harmonic-motion-equation-be-written-in-terms%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
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
3
$begingroup$
How many solutions $f$ are there to $f''=-lambda f$?
$endgroup$
– Kyle Kanos
2 hours ago