Why can all solutions to the simple harmonic motion equation be written in terms of sines and cosines?
$begingroup$
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 1 hour 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
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
2 hours 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
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
41 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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
2 hours 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
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
41 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
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
2 hours 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
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
41 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 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours ago
Emilio PisantyEmilio Pisanty
83.5k22204419
83.5k22204419
1
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
2 hours 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
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
41 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
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
2 hours 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
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
41 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
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
Might be worth mentioning that this is the "Cauchy-Lipshitz theorem", if OP wants to check it out.
$endgroup$
– Frotaur
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
2 hours ago
$begingroup$
@Frotaur That's an interesting name for the Picard-Lindelöf theorem ;-).
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
2 hours 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
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero There are no "better" answers - that's the whole point.
$endgroup$
– Emilio Pisanty
48 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
41 mins ago
$begingroup$
@alephzero How is it better...?
$endgroup$
– Aaron Stevens
41 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 2 hours ago
answered 2 hours 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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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');
var $window = $(window),
onScroll = function(e) {
var $elem = $('.new-login-left'),
docViewTop = $window.scrollTop(),
docViewBottom = docViewTop + $window.height(),
elemTop = $elem.offset().top,
elemBottom = elemTop + $elem.height();
if ((docViewTop elemBottom)) {
StackExchange.using('gps', function() { StackExchange.gps.track('embedded_signup_form.view', { location: 'question_page' }); });
$window.unbind('scroll', onScroll);
}
};
$window.on('scroll', onScroll);
});
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