Is there a general method for solving Fredholm integral equations?

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the challenges of solving Fredholm integral equations, specifically focusing on a particular equation encountered in thesis research. Participants explore the nature of the equation, the role of constants and variables, and the implications of probability conditions on the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant presents a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind and seeks methods for numerical and analytic solutions, noting the difficulty in imposing probability conditions on the solution.
  • Another participant questions whether the constant C is truly independent of the variables s1, s2, ..., sn, suggesting that this dependence could complicate the equation.
  • A participant provides an example of a solution in one dimension, illustrating a specific form of K and P, and discusses the implications of dividing K by a function f(s) to generate a solved version of the problem.
  • Several participants express confusion regarding the definitions and roles of variables in the equation, particularly the relationship between the constant C and the variables involved.
  • One participant highlights the underdetermined nature of the problem, pointing out the challenge of having a continuous function P and a single scalar known value C.
  • Another participant provides a counterexample to the assumption that the derivative of a function with respect to a variable must be zero if an integral over that function equals a constant for all values of that variable.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying levels of understanding and confusion regarding the equation and its components. There is no consensus on the implications of the constant C or the nature of the solution, indicating that multiple competing views remain.

Contextual Notes

The discussion reveals limitations in understanding the dependencies between variables and constants, as well as the implications of the probability conditions on the solutions. The mathematical steps and transformations proposed are not fully resolved.

LeonhardEuler
Gold Member
Messages
858
Reaction score
1
Hello Everyone. An interesting equation has come in my thesis research, and I was wondering whether anyone had any useful information about it. It is this equation:
\int_{a_1}^{b_1}...\int_{a_n}^{b_n}P(x_1,...x_n)K(x_1,...x_n,s_1...s_n)dx_1...dx_n=C
K is a known function of the x's and s's. C is an unknown constant. P is a probability distribution and so subject to
\int_{a_1}^{b_1}...\int_{a_n}^{b_n}P(x_1,...x_n)dx_1...dx=1
P(x_1,...x_n)\ge 0
The goal is to find P. I found this Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fredholm_integral_equation
So I see that this is a Fredholm integral equation of the first kind. However, none of the theorems they present have any clear relevance to helping solve this equation, and there is nothing about how to impose the probability conditions.

It would be great if there was a general method for a numerical solution of these equations, and it would be good to know about analytic solutions in certain cases. A general analytic solution is probably too much to hope for. A way to transform this to a differential equation would also be good, since I know more about those.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I'm a little confused at this specific equation; are you sure C is a constant and not dependent on s1, s2, ... sn? If you are, then how can K depend on s1, s2, ... sn?
 
MikeyW said:
I'm a little confused at this specific equation; are you sure C is a constant and not dependent on s1, s2, ... sn? If you are, then how can K depend on s1, s2, ... sn?

Yes, I am sure, and this is a question I get from a lot of people I have shown this to. Here is an example of a solution to the equation in one dimension:
F(x,s)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{(b-a)e^{-\frac{(x-s)^2}{2\sigma^2}}}{\sigma[erf(\frac{s-a}{\sqrt{2}\sigma})+erf(\frac{b-s}{\sqrt{2}\sigma})]}
P(x)=\frac{1}{b-a}
C=1
Given any K and P that don't solve the problem because they give f(s) instead of C, you can always generate a solved version of the problem (though not the one you are trying to solve) by dividing K by f(s).
 
I think you've lost me, what's F, a, b?

The last sentence also went over my head; am I right in saying that because C is a constant, dK/ds1 = dK/ds2 = ... = dK/dsn = 0? I don't think you'd be asking if it were, but I can't comprehend how the RHS is constant yet the LHS depends on a set of variables.

On a more fundamental level, it seems like you have a very large space of unknowns (a continuous function P) and a single scalar known value C. It would seem to be vastly underdetermined.
 
MikeyW said:
I think you've lost me, what's F, a, b?

The last sentence also went over my head; am I right in saying that because C is a constant, dK/ds1 = dK/ds2 = ... = dK/dsn = 0? And your problem is essentially an integral? I don't think you'd be asking if it were, but I can't comprehend how the RHS is constant yet the LHS depends on a set of variables.

Really sorry about that. I meant
K(x,s)=\sqrt{\frac{2}{\pi}}\frac{(b-a)e^{-\frac{(x-s)^2}{2\sigma^2}}}{\sigma[erf(\frac{s-a}{\sqrt{2}\sigma})+erf(\frac{b-s}{\sqrt{2}\sigma})]}
And a and b are the limits of integration in the original problem, with the subscripts dropped because this is a 1D case.

Let me clarify what I meant before with the last sentence. Suppose
\int_{a_1}^{b_1}...\int_{a_n}^{b_n}P(x_1,...x_n)K(x_1,...x_n,s_1...s_n) dx_1...dx_n=f(s_1,...s_n)
Then define
K_{new}(x_1,...x_n,s_1,...s_n)=\frac{K(x_1,...x_n,s_1,...s_n)}{f(s_1,...s_n)}
Then
\int_{a_1}^{b_1}...\int_{a_n}^{b_n}P(x_1,...x_n)K_{new}(x_1,...x_n,s_1...s_n) dx_1...dx_n=1
From this you see that the derivatives of K with respect to the s variables are not necessarily 0. Unless I'm still unclear. Thanks for taking the time to look at this.
 
Also, here is another simple example of the same counter intuitive kind of thing. Suppose
\int_{0}^{\infty}f(x,s)dx=1
for all s>0. You might think that
\frac{\partial f}{\partial s}=0
But suppose
f(x,s)=se^{-sx}
Then
\int_{0}^{\infty}se^{-sx}dx=1
but
\frac{\partial f}{\partial s}=-s^2e^{-sx}+e^{-sx}
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
863
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 0 ·
Replies
0
Views
1K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K