Euler-Cauchy equations
Most linear ODEs with variable coefficients have no closed-form solution at all — you fall back on series methods or numerical integration. The Euler-Cauchy equation is the striking exception the MA10001 syllabus singles out: a variable-coefficient equation, , that is nonetheless solvable exactly, by a single clean substitution. The trick is . It looks like an arbitrary change of variable, but it is doing something precise: it converts multiplication by into differentiation with respect to , so a power-of- coefficient pattern collapses into a constant-coefficient ODE — the same auxiliary-equation machinery you already know from the constant-coefficient unit. This article expands the Pass-1 treatment with a formal derivation of the operator identity , a fuller worked example, competitive-exam shortcuts, and a compact exam card. Every number and result below matches the Pass-1 article exactly; nothing new is claimed.
The substitution turns the equidimensional equation into a constant-coefficient ODE in , because and with .
The core idea
A second-order Euler-Cauchy (equidimensional) equation looks like
where: are constants and is the (possibly zero) forcing term. The defining feature is that the power of multiplying each derivative exactly matches its order: pairs with , with , with . That matching is what makes the equation "equidimensional" — scale by any constant and the equation keeps its shape.
Why works. Set and write . By the chain rule, , so
Differentiating again and simplifying (done in full below) gives the second-order identity
where: means "apply , then apply " — it is a product of operators, not of numbers, but algebraically it expands the same way. Substituting both identities into the Euler-Cauchy equation removes every explicit , leaving a constant-coefficient linear ODE in :
That is solved with the standard toolkit: form the auxiliary equation in (treat ), find the complementary function, add a particular integral if , then substitute back . Because , the root types translate directly: real distinct roots give ; a repeated root gives and ; complex roots give and . Third- and higher-order Euler-Cauchy equations extend the same pattern, with and so on. There is a second, equivalent route that skips altogether: try directly in the homogeneous equation . Substituting gives , so — identical to the auxiliary equation obtained via . Either derivation is acceptable on this course, but the substitution is preferred here because it also carries the nonhomogeneous case cleanly into the constant-coefficient particular-integral machinery.
Derivation of the operator identity
The goal is to prove, starting only from the substitution and the ordinary chain rule, that and , so that every Euler-Cauchy equation converts exactly into a constant-coefficient equation in with no approximation anywhere in the argument.
Step 1. Set , so . By the chain rule, . Multiplying both sides by gives the first-derivative identity immediately: .
Step 2. Differentiate once more with respect to , treating (a function of , hence of ) with the product rule. .
Step 3. Expand by the chain rule again, exactly as in Step 1 but applied to the function instead of : .
Step 4. Substitute back into Step 2: . Multiplying both sides by clears the fraction and gives , exactly the identity used to convert the Euler-Cauchy equation. Every term in the original equation can now be replaced by , and every term by , turning the whole left side into a polynomial in with constant coefficients.
Worked example
Solve the homogeneous Euler-Cauchy equation , then verify the solution directly.
Step 1. Substitute . Using and , the equation becomes , which expands to , i.e. — a constant-coefficient equation in .
Step 2. Form the auxiliary equation in : . Factoring, , so or — two real, distinct roots.
Step 3. Write the general solution in using the two real roots: , where are arbitrary constants fixed by initial or boundary conditions.
Step 4. Substitute back , using : and , so .
Step 5 — verify by direct substitution. For : , . Then , confirming solves the equation; a matching check on confirms the second term. The general solution is .
Competitive stretch
For the nonhomogeneous case (), the same machine runs with an extra particular-integral step: turns the left side into and the right side into , giving . The auxiliary equation gives , so . Since does not clash with the roots , try : substituting, , so . The full solution in is , and substituting back (so , , ) gives . A JEE-style question will often just ask for the particular integral, so recognizing and checking it against the roots of the auxiliary equation is the fast path — no need to re-derive the complementary function from scratch if it is already given.
Common traps
- Using instead of the correct . The missing term, traced in the derivation above, is the single most common Euler-Cauchy slip.
- Forgetting to convert into a function of . becomes ; leaving it as on the right side of a -operator equation is inconsistent and makes undetermined coefficients unusable.
- Forgetting to substitute back at the end, leaving the final answer as a function of instead of .
- Mishandling repeated or complex roots after transforming back. A repeated root gives and — not and ; complex roots give and , with inside the trig functions.
- Applying the method to a non-equidimensional equation. It only works when the power of exactly matches the derivative order at every term; is not Euler-Cauchy and needs a different (out-of-syllabus) approach.
Ask the tutor: unsure how to identify whether a given ODE is genuinely Euler-Cauchy, or want a step-by-step check of your substitution on a new problem — ask the AI tutor to walk through it with you.
Why does x = e^t work instead of some other substitution?
Because it exactly cancels the pattern of the equation. Each Euler-Cauchy term has its power of matched to its derivative order, and under every derivative with respect to picks up a compensating factor that combines with the coefficient to leave a pure operator in with no or left explicitly. No other simple substitution produces this exact cancellation for all orders at once, which is why is the standard choice rather than, say, or .
Do I have to go through t, or can I just guess y = x^m directly?
Both routes are valid and give the same auxiliary equation. Trying in the homogeneous equation directly gives , so — identical to what produces via . The direct guess is faster for homogeneous equations, but the route is preferred once the equation is nonhomogeneous, because it lets you reuse the full undetermined-coefficients or variation-of-parameters toolkit you already know for constant-coefficient equations, applied to on the right side.
What if the coefficient powers of x don't line up with the derivative orders?
Then the equation is not Euler-Cauchy and this substitution will not fully clear the -dependence. For example, has multiplying instead of the required , so leaves a residual term behind. Equations like this need a different method (often a series solution about ), which lies outside this unit's scope — recognizing the mismatched powers before attempting the substitution is the key skill, not memorizing the alternative method.