A continuous differential equation with no solution

Most of Cauchy existence theorems for a differential equation
x=f(t,x) where t is a real variable and x a vector on a real vectorial space E are valid when E is of finite dimension or a Banach space. This is however not true for the Peano existence theorem.

Take for E the space of real sequences converging to 0 for the norm x=supn|xn|. For all xE let’s note y=f(x) the sequence (yn) defined by:
yn=|xn|+1n+1 As limn+yn=0, y belongs to E. As the real function |x| is uniformly continuous on R, the function y=f(x) is continuous on E.

However, we’ll prove that the differential equation
x=f(x) has no solution in E with initial condition x(0)=0. If u was a solution, there would exist a sequence u(t)=[un(t)] of differentiable functions in a neighborhood of 0 satisfying:
un(t)=|un(t)|+1n+1 and un(0)=0 for all nN.

By direct integration it can be proved that each equation (3) has a unique solution satisfying un(0)=0. For all nN, un is an odd function defined on all R and verifying for t0: un(t)t24. This last inequality, valid for all nN contradicts the ability for u to belongs to E. Therefore, the equation (2) has no solution.

This counterexample is from the French mathematician Jean Dieudonné.

4 thoughts on “A continuous differential equation with no solution”

  1. Dear Jean-Pierre Merx,

    I done my calculations again and now I see that I was mistaken. Sorry for the trouble and thanks for providing the proof, now the inequality seems clear to me. 🙂

    Best regards,
    Tadashi

  2. Dear Jean-Pierre Merx, congratulations for the wonderful site!
    I wish success for the site and I’m looking forward for more counterexamples 🙂

    Between, I think there is a mistake in the last inequality of this counterexample, i.e. u_n(t) ≥ t ²/4 for t ≥ 0.
    Consider for instance that n = 2. Then as the following plot suggests, there exists a q ≥ 0 such that the inequality is not valid for all t ≥ q.
    Is there another way to prove that u doesn’t belongs to E?
    Thanks a lot and best regards!

    1. Dear Tadashi,

      Thanks you very much for your encouragement! Indeed, I intend to publish more content. My target is at least a post per week, or more if I have more time.

      In fact the inequality un(t)t24 can be proven either by direction integration or by considering the inequality un(t)>un(t) valid for all t>0.

      I have an issue to go to the link you provided. If you post it again, maybe I can have a look at it.

      Thanks, Jean-Pierre.

Leave a Reply