How to Simplify Equations Using Perturbation Method?

KFC
Messages
477
Reaction score
4
Suppose I have a equation of the form

F(x, k) = G(x, k)

which is unsolvable analytically. We apply the method of pertubtaion (k is small quantity) and let the first order solution approximated as

x = x^{(0)} + kx^{(1)}

we need to put this back to the equation and find out x^{(1)}. If after substitution, F(x, k) will only give constant term or term with k and G(x, k) will give some extra terms of order k^2. For example,

F(x, k) = ax^{(0)} + bkx^{(1)}
and
G(x, k) = cx^{(0)} + dkx^{(1)} + h k^2 (x^{(0)}-x^{(1)})

shall I directly drop the high-order term or let the coefficient of the high-order term to zero? For the later one, we will introduce another condition to solve the equation (seems not correct!?)
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
When you set x= x(0)+ kx(1), you are saying that the perturbation (measured by k) is small enough that higher powers can be ignored. You drop any term with k2 or higher.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
I'm interested to know whether the equation $$1 = 2 - \frac{1}{2 - \frac{1}{2 - \cdots}}$$ is true or not. It can be shown easily that if the continued fraction converges, it cannot converge to anything else than 1. It seems that if the continued fraction converges, the convergence is very slow. The apparent slowness of the convergence makes it difficult to estimate the presence of true convergence numerically. At the moment I don't know whether this converges or not.
Back
Top