Mathematica NDsolve error, ndode?

  • Context: Mathematica 
  • Thread starter Thread starter tau1777
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Error Mathematica
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around an error encountered while using Mathematica's NDSolve function to solve a set of coupled partial differential equations (PDEs). Participants explore potential reasons for the error message indicating that the input is not an ordinary differential equation, as well as the challenges associated with defining variables and functions necessary for the solution.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Exploratory

Main Points Raised

  • One participant expresses confusion over the NDSolve error and seeks suggestions regarding their PDEs.
  • Another participant suggests that the error may stem from undefined function definitions or variable assignments, indicating that NDSolve requires all variables to be properly defined for numerical solutions.
  • A different participant notes the difficulty of importing equations from a PDF and requests that the original poster provide actual values for variables to facilitate troubleshooting.
  • The original poster later indicates that they believe the issue may not be with Mathematica itself, but rather that the problem they are trying to solve is mathematically ill-posed.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the cause of the error. There are multiple competing views regarding the potential reasons for the NDSolve error, and the discussion remains unresolved regarding the specific solution to the problem.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the original poster's reluctance to share specific data due to ongoing research, which may hinder collaborative troubleshooting efforts. Additionally, there is uncertainty regarding the completeness of the provided equations and variable definitions.

tau1777
Messages
29
Reaction score
0
Hi all,

So I'm trying to solve, what I think are three coupled PDEs with NDSolve and it keeps giving me

NDSolve::ndode: Input is not an ordinary differential equation. >>

as an error. I don't quite understand why?

These are my PDEs for anyone that's interested. I will try to pretty them up in a separate post. I'm kind of in a rush right now.

Any suggestions/comments about this errors and my PDEs are greatly appreciated. Thank you so much. sol = NDSolve[

{
D[\[Delta]ur[r, \[Theta]], r] + D[\[Delta]u\[Theta][ r, \[Theta]], \[Theta]] ==
(ut/ rmd[r, \[Theta]] *(\[Sigma] - m*\[CapitalOmega])*\[Delta]rmd [
r, \[Theta]] ) - (2/r +
1/rmd[r, \[Theta]]* drmdr[r, \[Theta]] +
2*dalphar[r, \[Theta]] + dbetar[r, \[Theta]] +
dnur[r, \[Theta]])*\[Delta]ur[
r, \[Theta]] - (Cot[\[Theta]] +
1/rmd[r, \[Theta]]*drmd\[Theta][r, \[Theta]] +
2*dalpha\[Theta][r, \[Theta]] + dbeta\[Theta][r, \[Theta]] +
dnu\[Theta][r, \[Theta]])*\[Delta]u\[Theta][
r, \[Theta]] + (\[Sigma]*F[r, \[Theta]] -
m)*\[Delta]u\[CurlyPhi][r, \[Theta]],

D[\[Delta]p[r, \[Theta]],
r] == (((\[Epsilon] + p)*ut)/
Exp [-2 \[Alpha]])*(((1 /(\[Epsilon] + p)^2) *
Exp [-2 \[Alpha]]/ut *
D[p[r, \[Theta]],
r]*(\[Delta]\[Epsilon][r, \[Theta]] + \[Delta]p[
r, \[Theta]])) - (\[Sigma] -
m*\[CapitalOmega])*\[Delta]ur[
r, \[Theta]] + (Exp[2 \[Beta] - 2 \[Alpha]]*
r^2* (Sin[\[Theta]])^2* ( \[CapitalOmega] - \[Omega][r, q])*
D[Log [F[r, \[Theta]]], r]* \[Delta]u\[CurlyPhi][
r, \[Theta]])),

D[\[Delta]p[
r, \[Theta]], \[Theta]] == (((\[Epsilon] + p)*r^2 * ut )/
Exp [-2 \[Alpha]])*((1 /(\[Epsilon] + p)^2 *
Exp [-2 \[Alpha]]/r^2*ut *
D[p[r, \[Theta]], \[Theta]]*(\[Delta]\[Epsilon][
r, \[Theta]] + \[Delta]p[r, \[Theta]]) - (\[Sigma] -
m*\[CapitalOmega])*\[Delta]u\[Theta][
r, \[Theta]] + (Exp[2 \[Beta] - 2 \[Alpha]]*
r^2* (Sin[\[Theta]])^2* ( \[CapitalOmega] - \[Omega][
r, \[Theta]])*
D[Log[ F[r, \[Theta]]], r])* \[Delta]u\[CurlyPhi][
r, \[Theta]])),


(*Boundary Conditions*)
\[Delta]\[Theta][1, \[Theta]] ==
0, \[Delta]ur[1, \[Theta]] == \[Delta]p[
1, \[Theta]] == \[Delta]\[Theta][r, 1] == \[Delta]ur[r,
1] == \[Delta]p[r, 1] ==
0, -I*\[Gamma]1*\[Delta]p[128, \[Theta]] + \[Delta]ur[
128, \[Theta]]*
Evaluate[D[\[Delta]p[128, \[Theta]], r]] + \[Delta]u\[Theta][
128, \[Theta]]*
Evaluate[D[\[Delta]p[128, \[Theta]], \[Theta]]] ==
0},

(*what I'm solving for, and the bounds*)
{\[Delta]p, \[Delta]ur, \[Delta]u\[Theta]}, {r, 1,
128}, {\[Theta], 1, 64}]
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I cannot tell from what you have shown whether
1: you have left out a variety of function definitions and variable assignments or
2: you are thinking NDSolve is going to give you a numeric solution with those undefined.
If you have defined and assigned all those values so this is strictly a numerical solution process then perhaps the problem lies in what you have not included. If you have not defined and assigned then this is a common problem, people expecting a numerical integration solution when they arbitrary variables or, even worse, arbitrary functions in what they pass to NDSolve nor NSolve.

From a different direction, it appears that for years people have asked why they are getting this warning message
http://www.google.com/search?q=Mathematica+"Input+is+not+an+ordinary+differential+equation"
and there does not appear to be a simple clear answer to that question.

Does any of this seem to relate to your question?
 
Hi Bill,

I'm very sorry about the lack of explanation. I have added a .pdf file with an explanation of the variables and I've made the eqs nicer.

I did try looking it up on the google. And I reached the conclusion that no one really knows what causes this error. That's one of the reason's I'm putting it up here. Because I think that I just need someone experience with Mathematica to look at it.


Thanks again for even looking at this mess. I truly appreciate it.
 

Attachments

It isn't easy to import the equations out of a pdf document back into a notebook.

Would it be possible for you to take all your data and crunch it down to
Alpha=youractualvalue;
CapitalOmega=youractualvalue;
etc
for all the variables that you actually have values for
and then prepend onto your latest version of your code
and attach the resulting notebook to your next post?

That would let me try to reproduce what you are doing with the actual values you have.
 
Hi Bill,

Really sorry about the late reply. I wasn't sure how to respond. I don't think I can give out the data as this pertains to current research being done.

I have made some progress on the problem. And I believe one of the problems I was having with Mathematica was not with Mathematica at all. I was just trying to have it solve a problem that was mathematically ill-posed. So its no wonder it failed.

Anyways, thanks for all the help. Sorry again about the super-late reply.
 

Similar threads

Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
7K
  • · Replies 8 ·
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
3K
Replies
1
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
2K