MHB Pharaoh's Taylor series question from Yahoo Answers

AI Thread Summary
The discussion focuses on solving van der Pol's equation using two numerical methods: the Taylor series and the modified Euler method. The Taylor series expansion yields approximate values of y(0.1) as 0.109599 and y(0.2) as 0.108789, calculated to six decimal places. The modified Euler method provides an approximate solution of y(0.2) as 0.10961, which is slightly different from the Taylor series result. Both methods demonstrate effective approaches to approximating solutions for the given differential equation. The comparison highlights the reliability of these numerical techniques in solving complex equations.
CaptainBlack
Messages
801
Reaction score
0
Part 1 of Pharaoh's Taylor series and modified Euler question from Yahoo Answers

consider van der pol's equation
y" - 0.2(1-y^2)y' + y = 0 y(0)=0.1 y'(0)=0.1
1)
You are asked to find the approximate solution for this problem using the Taylor series
method. Your expansion should include the first three non-zero terms and you should
work to six decimal places accuracy. First find the approximate solutions for both y (0.1)
and y’(0.1) using the first three non-zero terms of Taylor series expansion for each
function and then use this information to calculate the approximate solution at x = 0.2.
The Taylor series expansion about \(t=0\) is of the form:
\(y(t)=y(0)+y'(0)t+\frac{y''(0)t^2}{2}+.. \)​
We are given \(y(0)\) and \(y'(0)\) in the initial condition, and so from the equation we have:
\(y''(0) = 0.2(1-(y(0))^2)-y(0)=0.2(1-0.1^2)-0.1=-0.0802\)​
So the Taylor series about \(t=0\) is:
\(y(t)=0.1+0.1t-0.0401t^2+... \)​
and using the first three terms of this we have \(y(0.1)\approx 0.109599\), Also:
\(y'(t)=0.1-0.0802t+...\)​
and so \(y'(0.1) \approx 0.09198\)Now the Taylor expansion about \(t=0.1\) is:

\(y(t)=y(0.1)+(t-0.1)y'(0.1)+\frac{(t-0.1)^2y''(0.1)}{2}+...\)​
where \(y''(0.1)=0.2\left(1-(y(0.1))^2\right)y'(0.1)-y(0.1)=-0.08178796\).So:

\(y(0.2)\approx 0.109599+0.1\times 0.0198-0.1^2\times 0.8178796 = 0.108789 \) to 6 six DP​
 
Last edited:
Mathematics news on Phys.org
.2)
Next, the modified Euler method can be used to find the approximate solution for this problem. The modified Euler method is given by:

\(y_{n+1}=y_n+hf(x_n+\frac{h}{2},y_n+\frac{h}{2}f(x_n,y_n))\)

where \(f(x,y)=y"-0.2(1-y^2)y'+y\).

Using \(h=0.1\) and starting with \(y_0=0.1\), we can calculate the values of \(y_1\) and \(y_2\) as follows:

\(y_1\approx 0.1+0.1\left(0.1+\frac{0.1}{2}\left(0.1-0.2(1-0.1^2)0.1+0.1\right)\right)\approx 0.109625\)

\(y_2\approx 0.109625+0.1\left(0.2+\frac{0.1}{2}\left(0.2-0.2(1-0.109625^2)0.2+0.109625\right)\right)\approx 0.10961\)

So, the approximate solution at \(x=0.2\) using the modified Euler method is \(y(0.2)\approx 0.10961\). This is slightly different from the value obtained using the Taylor series method, but both methods provide a good approximation to the actual solution.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
Is it possible to arrange six pencils such that each one touches the other five? If so, how? This is an adaption of a Martin Gardner puzzle only I changed it from cigarettes to pencils and left out the clues because PF folks don’t need clues. From the book “My Best Mathematical and Logic Puzzles”. Dover, 1994.
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top