I Error Propagation in Transcendental Equation

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving the transcendental equation for ##\kappa## in waveguide applications, particularly in the context of error propagation due to uncertainties in the parameter ##a##. To account for the error ##\Delta a##, participants suggest varying ##a## and solving for ##\kappa## in both cases to assess the resulting deviations. If the deviations are symmetric, they can be used to estimate uncertainty in ##\kappa##. Alternatively, a more sophisticated approach involves differentiating the equation with respect to ##a## to derive a relationship for ##\kappa'##. Numerical methods, such as Monte Carlo simulations, are also recommended to generate a distribution of ##\kappa## values based on random sampling of ##a##.
jst6981
Messages
2
Reaction score
1
Hey guys,

I'm in a class where we're learning about waveguides, and without going into too much depth, we often solve an equation

$$ \tan{(\kappa (\frac{a}{2}))} = \frac{\gamma}{\kappa} $$

for ##\kappa## numerically since there isn't an analytic solution for ##\kappa##. I'm doing a project where ##a## has an error ##\Delta a##, and I want to be able to solve this in a way so that I have a ##\kappa## written ##\kappa \pm \Delta \kappa## so that I can propagate the error in ##\kappa## due to the error in ##a## throughout the rest of my calculations for the project.

If anybody has a nice way I can do this, please let me know. I appreciate help in advance!
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Vary a by Δa up and down, solve for ##\kappa## in both cases. If the resulting deviations of ##\kappa## are reasonably symmetric, use that as uncertainty. Otherwise it might need more sophisticated approaches.
 
I had considered that, each function is roughly linear when they intersect as below.
upload_2017-11-12_23-29-52.png


I think it may work
 

Attachments

  • upload_2017-11-12_23-29-52.png
    upload_2017-11-12_23-29-52.png
    13.3 KB · Views: 627
  • Like
Likes mfb
If you write that k is a function of a and differentiate your equation wrt a, you can eliminate the trig and get a differential equation for k. Manipulate that to get k' as a function of k and a.
 
Do you want an analytical solution or you are fine with using numerical solutions?
In the latter you can generate some toys, let's say 10,000...
In each toy, you randomly sample \alpha from a gaussian (for example) with mean \alpha and standard deviation \Delta \alpha, so that you get a set \{\alpha_i\} , i=1,~2,~...,~10000 measurements...
You can get the \{k_i\} set from your equation.
See how it's distributed and try to find the 68% central coverage (aka determine \Delta k_{\pm} where plus/minus means the up/down uncertainty - that means the range [nominal-down, nominal] contains the 34% of your toys and the range [nominal,nominal+up] contains the other 34%)...
 
I was reading a Bachelor thesis on Peano Arithmetic (PA). PA has the following axioms (not including the induction schema): $$\begin{align} & (A1) ~~~~ \forall x \neg (x + 1 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A2) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + 1 =y + 1 \to x = y) \nonumber \\ & (A3) ~~~~ \forall x (x + 0 = x) \nonumber \\ & (A4) ~~~~ \forall xy (x + (y +1) = (x + y ) + 1) \nonumber \\ & (A5) ~~~~ \forall x (x \cdot 0 = 0) \nonumber \\ & (A6) ~~~~ \forall xy (x \cdot (y + 1) = (x \cdot y) + x) \nonumber...
I was reading documentation about the soundness and completeness of logic formal systems. Consider the following $$\vdash_S \phi$$ where ##S## is the proof-system making part the formal system and ##\phi## is a wff (well formed formula) of the formal language. Note the blank on left of the turnstile symbol ##\vdash_S##, as far as I can tell it actually represents the empty set. So what does it mean ? I guess it actually means ##\phi## is a theorem of the formal system, i.e. there is a...
Back
Top