Approximating Equations for Unknowns: How to Justify the Form of $U_0$?

  • MHB
  • Thread starter evinda
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation discusses the finite difference method for solving a given problem and justifying the form of the equation for the unknown $U_0$. The experts discuss the inclusion of a second order correction and how to show that the resulting matrix of coefficients is invertible. They also consider the error term and how to justify ignoring it as it converges to $0$ with a convergence rate of $O(h^3)$.
  • #1
evinda
Gold Member
MHB
3,836
0
Hello! (Wave)

Given the problem $$-u''(x)+q(x)u(x)=f(x), 0 \leq x \leq 1, \\ u'(0)=u(0), \ \ u(1)=0$$ where $f,g$ are continuous functions on $[0,1]$ with $q(x) \geq q_0>0, x \in [0,1]$. Let $U_j$ be the approximations of $u(x_j)$ at the points $x_j=jh, j=0, 1, \dots , N+1$, where $(N+1)h=1$, that gives the finite difference method $$-\frac{1}{h^2}\left (U_{j-1}-2U_j+U_{j+1}\right )+q(x_j)U_j=f(x_j), \ \ 1 \leq j \leq N \\ \frac{1}{h}(U_1-U_0)-U_0=\frac{1}{2}h\left (q(x_0)U_0-f(x_0)\right )$$ where $U_{N+1}=0$.

I have to justify the form of the equation for the unknown $U_0$. We have that the approximation of the first derivative $u'(x_j)$ is $$u'(x_j) \approx \frac{u(x_{i+1})-u(x_{i-1})}{2h}$$

so from $u'(0)=u(0)$ we have $$\frac{U_1-U_0}{h}=U_0 \Rightarrow \frac{1}{h}(U_1-U_0)-U_0=0$$ but this is not the desired result.

What have I done wrong? How do we get $\frac{1}{h}(U_1-U_0)-U_0=\frac{1}{2}h\left (q(x_0)U_0-f(x_0)\right )$ ? (Thinking)
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Hey evinda! (Smile)

I believe we're including the second order correction:
$$u(h) = u(0) + hu'(0) +\frac 12 h^2 u''(0)$$
Thus
$$u(h) =u(0) + hu(0) +\frac 12 h^2\Big(q(0)u(0)-f(0)\Big) \\
\Rightarrow U_1 = U_0 + hU_0 +\frac 12h^2\Big(q(0)U_0-f(0)\Big)
$$
(Thinking)
 
  • #3
I like Serena said:
Hey evinda! (Smile)

I believe we're including the second order correction:
$$u(h) = u(0) + hu'(0) +\frac 12 h^2 u''(0)$$
Thus
$$u(h) =u(0) + hu(0) +\frac 12 h^2\Big(q(0)u(0)-f(0)\Big) \\
\Rightarrow U_1 = U_0 + hU_0 +\frac 12h^2\Big(q(0)U_0-f(0)\Big)
$$
(Thinking)

I see... So do we suppose that at the Taylor expansion there is no error? (Thinking)

- - - Updated - - -

Also how could we show that the matrix of coefficients

$A=\begin{bmatrix}
-\frac{1}{h^2}+\frac{1}{h}+\frac{q(x_0)}{2} & -\frac{1}{h^2} & 0 & 0 & \cdots& 0\\
-\frac{1}{h^2} & \frac{2}{h^2}+q(x_1) & -\frac{1}{h^2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{1}{h^2}& \frac{2}{h^2}+q(x_2) & -\frac{1}{h^2} & & 0\\
& & & & \ddots & 0 \\
& & & & & -\frac{1}{h^2}\\
& & & & -\frac{1}{h^2} & \frac{2}{h^2}+q(x_N)
\end{bmatrix}$

is invertible? (Thinking)
 
  • #4
evinda said:
I see... So do we suppose that at the Taylor expansion there is no error? (Thinking)

There will still be an error, just an order of magnitude less.
Not bad eh? (Mmm)
Also how could we show that the matrix of coefficients

$A=\begin{bmatrix}
-\frac{1}{h^2}+\frac{1}{h}+\frac{q(x_0)}{2} & -\frac{1}{h^2} & 0 & 0 & \cdots& 0\\
-\frac{1}{h^2} & \frac{2}{h^2}+q(x_1) & -\frac{1}{h^2} & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -\frac{1}{h^2}& \frac{2}{h^2}+q(x_2) & -\frac{1}{h^2} & & 0\\
& & & & \ddots & 0 \\
& & & & & -\frac{1}{h^2}\\
& & & & -\frac{1}{h^2} & \frac{2}{h^2}+q(x_N)
\end{bmatrix}$

is invertible? (Thinking)

We won't be able to guarantee that it's invertible for any $h$ and any function $q$.
I think that for any $h$ there will be a function $q$ such that the matrix is not invertible.

However, we can write $A$ as:
$$A=\frac 1{h^2}\begin{bmatrix}
-1+h+h^2\frac{q(x_0)}{2} & -1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots& 0\\
-1 & 2+h^2q(x_1) & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -1& 2+h^2q(x_2) & -1 & & 0\\
& & & & \ddots & 0 \\
& & & & & -1\\
& & & & -1 & 2+h^2q(x_N)
\end{bmatrix}$$
And if $h$ is small enough, it approaches:
$$A \approx \frac 1{h^2}\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots& 0\\
-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -1& 2 & -1 & & 0\\
& & & & \ddots & 0 \\
& & & & & -1\\
& & & & -1 & 2
\end{bmatrix} $$
Would that be invertible? (Wondering)
 
  • #5
I like Serena said:
There will still be an error, just an order of magnitude less.
Not bad eh? (Mmm)

We won't be able to guarantee that it's invertible for any $h$ and any function $q$.
I think that for any $h$ there will be a function $q$ such that the matrix is not invertible.

However, we can write $A$ as:
$$A=\frac 1{h^2}\begin{bmatrix}
-1+h+h^2\frac{q(x_0)}{2} & -1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots& 0\\
-1 & 2+h^2q(x_1) & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -1& 2+h^2q(x_2) & -1 & & 0\\
& & & & \ddots & 0 \\
& & & & & -1\\
& & & & -1 & 2+h^2q(x_N)
\end{bmatrix}$$
And if $h$ is small enough, it approaches:
$$A \approx \frac 1{h^2}\begin{bmatrix}
-1 & -1 & 0 & 0 & \cdots& 0\\
-1 & 2 & -1 & 0 & \cdots & 0 \\
0 & -1& 2 & -1 & & 0\\
& & & & \ddots & 0 \\
& & & & & -1\\
& & & & -1 & 2
\end{bmatrix} $$
Would that be invertible? (Wondering)

From the wiki on tridiagonal matrices, it would appear so, since this particular matrix has all the off-diagonal elements equal (it's also Toeplitz, but that's more general). However, these results have only been obtained around 1996 or 1997 - fairly recently. Not sure they've made their way into a lot of textbooks yet.
 
  • #6
I like Serena said:
There will still be an error, just an order of magnitude less.
Not bad eh? (Mmm)

We would have an error of order $O(h^3)$. Can we ignore it since it converges to $0$?
If so, how could we justify it formally? (Thinking)
 

FAQ: Approximating Equations for Unknowns: How to Justify the Form of $U_0$?

How do we get this equation?

This question is often asked when presented with a complex equation or mathematical formula. The answer depends on the specific equation and the context in which it is being used. Generally, equations are derived from a combination of mathematical principles and empirical evidence.

Is this equation accurate?

This is a valid question when considering the validity of an equation. The accuracy of an equation can be determined by comparing its predictions to real-world data and observations. If the equation consistently produces accurate results, it can be considered accurate.

Can this equation be simplified?

It is not uncommon for equations to be complex and difficult to understand at first glance. In some cases, equations can be simplified by rearranging terms or using mathematical identities. However, simplifying an equation may also result in loss of accuracy, so it is important to carefully consider the trade-offs.

What are the assumptions and limitations of this equation?

All equations have underlying assumptions and limitations. These may include assumptions about the behavior of variables, the accuracy of data, or the applicability of the equation to certain scenarios. It is important to understand these limitations in order to properly use and interpret the equation.

How can this equation be applied in real-world situations?

This question is often asked when trying to understand the practical applications of an equation. The answer will vary depending on the specific equation and the field of study it is used in. In general, equations are used to model and predict real-world phenomena, and understanding their applications can help inform decision-making and problem-solving.

Similar threads

Replies
16
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
8
Views
1K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
1K
Back
Top