How Can Newton-Raphson Method Solve These Complex Nonlinear Equations?

Click For Summary

Homework Help Overview

The discussion centers around solving a system of three complex nonlinear equations involving the variables c, s, and q using the Newton-Raphson method. Participants express challenges related to the method's application and the equations' complexity.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory, Assumption checking, Problem interpretation

Approaches and Questions Raised

  • The original poster attempts to apply the Newton-Raphson method to each equation but struggles with deriving the necessary derivatives and managing the interdependencies of the variables. Some participants suggest simplifying the equations or using scaling techniques to improve numerical stability. Others question the appropriateness of the problem as a teaching example.

Discussion Status

Participants are exploring various approaches to the problem, including the potential use of scaling to address numerical issues. There is no explicit consensus on the best method to proceed, but some guidance has been offered regarding the use of software tools and the need for careful handling of the equations.

Contextual Notes

The original poster indicates a preference for solving the equations by hand, which adds to the complexity of the discussion. There are concerns about the scaling of the equations and the potential difficulties in applying the Newton-Raphson method effectively.

wel
Gold Member
Messages
36
Reaction score
0
The three non-linear equations are given by
\begin{equation}
c[(6.7 * 10^8) + (1.2 * 10^8)s+(1-q)(2.6*10^8)]-0.00114532=0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
s[2.001 *c + 835(1-q)]-2.001*c =0
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
q[2.73 + (5.98*10^{10})c]-(5.98 *10^{10})c =0
\end{equation}
Using the Newton-Raphson Method solve these equations in terms of c,s and q.

=> It is really difficult question for me because i don't know very much about the Newton-Raphson Method and also these non-linear equations contain 3 variables.

I have try by applying the Newton-Raphson method to each equations:-
\begin{equation}
f(c,s,q)=0= c[(6.7 * 10^8) + (1.2 * 10^8)s+(1-q)(2.6*10^8)]-0.00114532
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
g(c,s,q)=0= s[2.001 *c + 835(1-q)]-2.001*c
\end{equation}
\begin{equation}
h(c,s,q)=0= q[2.73 + (5.98*10^{10})c]-(5.98 *10^{10})c
\end{equation}
now i guess i need to work out f'(c,s,q), g'(c,s,q), h'(c,s,q) but i don't know how?

and after working out f'(c,s,q), g'(c,s,q), h'(c,s,q) . After that i think i need to use Newton-raphson iteration:

c_{n+1}= c_n - \frac{f(c,s,q)}{f'(c,s,q)}

but the f(c,s,q) and f'(c,s,q) contains the s and q.

Similarly, for

s_{n+1}= s_n - \frac{g(c,s,q)}{g'(c,s,q)}

will have g(c,s,q) and g&#039;(c,s,q) containing the c and q[/itex[].<br /> <br /> q_{n+1}= q_n - \frac{h(c,s,q)}{h&amp;#039;(c,s,q)} <br /> <br /> will have h(c,s,q) and h&amp;#039;(c,s,q) containing the c.<br /> <br /> so am i not sure what to do please help me. to find the values of c,s,q.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Perhaps you should read how the Newton Raphson method works for multi variable problems. Here's one link:

http://fourier.eng.hmc.edu/e161/lectures/ica/node13.html

[Edit, added] Why don't you simplify the equations a bit first? Also, are you using something like Maple or Mathematica? If so, why not let the package solve the system? I'm not a computer scientist, but I would be wary of a system with huge numbers and little bitty numbers.
 
Last edited:
I need to calculate by hand without any mathematical software. that's the reason i am having difficulty. please help me.
 
'
wel said:
I need to calculate by hand without any mathematical software. that's the reason i am having difficulty. please help me.

You have already been told what you need to do; have you tried it?

Personally, I would be skeptical about the use of a standard method on your problem as it stands, because your problem is very badly scaled. You can get a much better-behaved system by using scaled variables: let ##s = 10^{-8} s'## and ##c = 10^{-9} c'##. Then the system becomes
.93 c&#039;-.26 c&#039; q-.00114532 +.7065655170 \times 10^{-11} c&#039; s&#039; = 0\\<br /> 835 s&#039;-835 s&#039;q-.2001 c&#039; + .2001 \times 10^{-8} c&#039; s&#039;= 0 \\<br /> 2.73 q+59.8 c&#039; q-59.8 c&#039; = 0<br />
In this new system the bad scaling is limited to the terms in ##c' s'## in the first two equations. It is very probable that much better accuracy can be obtained from solving the new system.
 
@Ray: Interestingly enough, Maple will give an answer to that system. Then if you solve the same system without the ##c's'## terms, you get the same answer. Not too surprising, I guess. I'm thinking those two terms would also raise havoc when calculating the inverse of the Jacobian for Newton-Rhapson.
 
LCKurtz said:
@Ray: Interestingly enough, Maple will give an answer to that system. Then if you solve the same system without the ##c's'## terms, you get the same answer. Not too surprising, I guess. I'm thinking those two terms would also raise havoc when calculating the inverse of the Jacobian for Newton-Rhapson.

Yes, I did everything in Maple.

If you take the original system but first convert the numbers from floats to rationals, the maple command 'solve' produces a solution in terms of some 'Root_Of' expressions; then applying the 'allvalues' command produces 4 symbolic solutions, but which are huge, multi-page monsters that involve enormous rational numbers, etc. Applying 'evalf[n]' for n-digit evaluation produces two complex and two real solutions. Applying 'solve' on the original system, with no rational conversion, produces essentially the same 4 floating-point solutions. Using 'fsolve' instead produces one of the 4 solutions, and if I am not mistaken, is done essentially by implementing Newton's method. I suspect that the implementation was done carefully enough to get around bad scaling, perhaps by using a self-scaling version of Newton.
 
@wel: Where did this problem come from? If it is just a problem where you are supposed to learn how Newton-Rhapson method works, then it is a ridiculous teaching example. On the other hand, if you are studying numerical analysis and learning about how to handle systems that aren't well behaved, it would be a more appropriate problem. Please give us the context in which this problem arose.
 

Similar threads

Replies
6
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
4K
Replies
1
Views
2K
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
Replies
2
Views
2K
Replies
7
Views
2K