The Two Workhorse Methods
If , move all ’s left and ’s right: , integrate both sides, and solve for . The prototype gives exponential growth/decay , and half-life problems are the case . For instance, a half-life of gives , and .
Why moving the differentials is legitimate: if is a solution, then holds for every , and integrating both sides in turns the left side into by the substitution — the chain rule run backward. So every solution satisfies with and , and the constant labels which curve you are on. The division needs : each root of is a constant solution that the division discards, and you add it back by hand.
For , multiply through by : the left side collapses to by design, and one integration finishes it. Example: with gives , hence .
Why has that formula: we want the left side to be the derivative of the product , which is . The two agree exactly when — a separable equation for whose solution is . Any antiderivative will do: a different constant of integration only rescales , and the rescaling cancels when you divide at the end.
Claimed solution of , : . Check: ✓ and ✓ — a thirty-second check that catches most integration slips.
The check is decisive because it is the definition: a function is a solution exactly when substituting it makes the two sides agree for every and the initial value matches. It catches the typical slips. The tempting wrong answer (constant added instead of multiplied) has but ; the two sides differ by , so it is not a solution.
Radioactive dating, drug clearance, RC circuits, compound interest, and atmospheric pressure with altitude are all separable or linear first-order equations. Carbon-14 dating is literally the half-life computation of this topic applied to archaeology: measure the remaining fraction, invert .
Is separable, linear, or both? Solve it with .
Show the answerHide the answer
Separable but not linear: the right side factors as , but sits in a denominator, so the equation cannot be written as . Separate: . Integrate: , so . The data give , so . Take the positive root, because the curve passes through and can never reach , where the equation is undefined: , defined for all . Verify: ✓ and ✓.
Separable Equations: Lost Solutions and Blow-Up
A solution of an initial-value problem is a function on an interval containing the initial point. Separation often produces a formula that breaks down somewhere — a vertical asymptote, the logarithm of zero, asked for a value it cannot take — and the solution lives only on the largest interval through the initial point on which the formula stays finite and differentiable. The constant solutions , one for each root of , are checked separately.
Nothing in looks dangerous, yet its solutions reach infinity at a finite . The slope is the square of the height, so the higher the curve, the faster it climbs, and climbing from to costs only unit of . A linear equation with continuous and cannot do this — its solutions exist wherever and are continuous — so blow-up is a nonlinear effect, and the way to find it is to solve and look at where the formula fails.
Solve , , and find where the solution exists.
Step 1 — separate. This divides by , which is safe here because the initial value keeps us off the constant solution : .
Step 2 — integrate both sides: .
Step 3 — use the data now, while the constant is still visible: , so and , i.e. .
Step 4 — the interval: the formula has a vertical asymptote at . A solution is a continuous function through , so it lives on only; the branch of the same formula for is a different curve.
Step 5 — verify: ✓ and ✓.
Solve , .
Step 1 — the right side factors as with and ; since is never zero, there are no constant solutions to lose.
Step 2 — separate and integrate: gives .
Step 3 — the data: , so .
Step 4 — solve for , which is where the interval appears: only takes values in , so is possible only while , and there .
Step 5 — the solution exists for and tends to at both ends.
Step 6 — verify: ✓.
Solve with by the same separation: , and the data demand — no value of works. The conclusion “there is no solution” is false: satisfies and . It was lost in the first step, where dividing by assumed . Before dividing by , list the roots of ; each is a constant solution, and one of them may be the answer.
Solve with , and give the largest interval containing on which the solution exists.
Show the answerHide the answer
Separate: (no constant solutions are lost, since is never ). Integrate: ; the data give . So and . The logarithm needs , which fails only where ; the nearest such points to are and . The solution lives on and plunges to at both ends. Verify: , and ✓.
Linear Equations with Variable Coefficients
Before computing , divide by the coefficient of so that the equation reads . Then , , and
The constant enters as : every solution is one particular solution plus times the homogeneous solution .
The recipe came from matching against , and that match has a bare in it, so it only works when has coefficient . The shape also has a reason: the difference of two solutions solves , whose solutions are exactly . When that homogeneous part decays, so solutions forget their starting values and merge onto one curve; when they spread apart.
Solve for , with .
Step 1 — standard form: divide by (allowed, since ): , so and .
Step 2 — the factor: .
Step 3 — multiply the standard form by : , and the left side is — confirm this with the product rule before going on, since it is the whole point of .
Step 4 — integrate: , so .
Step 5 — the data: , so and .
Step 6 — verify in the original form: and , which add to ✓.
Solve , .
Step 1 — the equation is already in standard form, with and .
Step 2 — the factor: .
Step 3 — multiply through: .
Step 4 — integrate with the substitution , : , so and .
Step 5 — the data: , so .
Step 6 — verify: , and ✓. Here for , so the homogeneous part grows: nearby solutions separate instead of merging.
Solve , , and describe what happens for large .
Step 1 — , so and .
Step 2 — integrate by parts twice; the integral reappears with the opposite sign, and solving for it gives .
Step 3 — so and .
Step 4 — the data: , so and .
Step 5 — verify: , and adding leaves ✓.
Step 6 — read it: the term (the transient) dies whatever is, so every solution settles onto the same steady oscillation , of amplitude , lagging the forcing by .
For , reading straight off the page gives . Multiplying the equation by it gives on the left, but : the first terms differ by the factor , so the left side is not the derivative of and the method has nothing to integrate. The formula assumes has coefficient ; dividing by first gives and .
Solve for with .
Show the answerHide the answer
Standard form: , so and . Multiplying back by gives — the original left side was already the derivative , which the method discovers for you. Integrate: , so . Data: , so and . Verify: ✓.
Proofs & Why It Matters
With , note (chain rule). Then — the product rule rebuilds the left side of exactly. So the equation becomes ; integrate once and divide by . The factor is engineered so the product rule does the collapsing.
If with , divide: . Integrate both sides in ; on the left, substitute , (the chain rule in reverse): .
The informal "move the " is shorthand for exactly this substitution — nothing illegal happens.
separates to , so and — and this is the only solution: if also solves it, then , so is constant. Setting gives , i.e. .
Going Deeper: Explanations & Worked Problems
Given , the triage is: can the right side be factored as — a pure- piece times a pure- piece? Then separate. Is it linear in — expressible as with appearing alone to the first power? Then integrating factor.
( hides its linearity until rearranged: .) Some equations are both (), many are neither — those go to slope fields, Euler, or substitutions. Two habits matter more than any method. First, track the constant from the moment you integrate: it lives inside the exponential as , not tacked on the end as — a wrong constant placement is the single most common first-order error. Second, plug the final answer back into the original equation; ten seconds of differentiation catches nearly everything.
Solve with .
Step 1 — separate: (noting is a solution we are not on, since ).
Step 2 — integrate both sides: .
Step 3 — exponentiate carefully: , and absorbing the sign into a new constant : — the constant is multiplicative.
Step 4 — apply the initial condition: , so .
Step 5 — verify: ✓ and ✓. Watch what Step 3 prevented: writing and "solving" gives a function that fails the original equation instantly.
Solve with .
Step 1 — identify , ; the factor is .
Step 2 — multiply the whole equation: , whose left side is exactly — that collapse is guaranteed by the construction, so if it does not factor cleanly, recheck .
Step 3 — integrate: .
Step 4 — solve: ; the condition gives , so .
Step 5 — verify and interpret: and ✓; the solution climbs from toward the equilibrium (where forces ) — the phase-line picture and the formula telling one story.