Mixing
perturbation method for $y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2$ and $y(1) = 1$.
Clash Royale CLAN TAG#URR8PPP
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The question follows this exercise in Bender and Orszag.
We would like to find the asymptotic for
$$y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2text and y(1) = 1$$
Dropping the epsilon term, we get two solutions
$$y=1 text or y = 1- frac1x-c$$
and the answers there said we will "add perturbation terms to either $y$ or $(y-1)^-1$." What does this mean exactly?
And also what is a standard perturbation method for equations like $y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2$?
I am only familiar with the case when $epsilon$ only appears on the $y''$ term. Here I think we can not just plug in
$y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $, since there are two possible boundary layers at $x = 0$ or $x=c$ when $y$ takes the non constant solution?
And for what type of ODEs we can simply substitute in $y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $ to get the asymptotic?
differential-equations asymptotics perturbation-theory
asked 6 hours ago
Xiao
4,31211333
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The question follows this exercise in Bender and Orszag.
We would like to find the asymptotic for
$$y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2text and y(1) = 1$$
Dropping the epsilon term, we get two solutions
$$y=1 text or y = 1- frac1x-c$$
and the answers there said we will "add perturbation terms to either $y$ or $(y-1)^-1$." What does this mean exactly?
And also what is a standard perturbation method for equations like $y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2$?
I am only familiar with the case when $epsilon$ only appears on the $y''$ term. Here I think we can not just plug in
$y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $, since there are two possible boundary layers at $x = 0$ or $x=c$ when $y$ takes the non constant solution?
And for what type of ODEs we can simply substitute in $y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $ to get the asymptotic?
differential-equations asymptotics perturbation-theory
asked 6 hours ago
Xiao
4,31211333
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
up vote
1
down vote
favorite
The question follows this exercise in Bender and Orszag.
We would like to find the asymptotic for
$$y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2text and y(1) = 1$$
Dropping the epsilon term, we get two solutions
$$y=1 text or y = 1- frac1x-c$$
and the answers there said we will "add perturbation terms to either $y$ or $(y-1)^-1$." What does this mean exactly?
And also what is a standard perturbation method for equations like $y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2$?
I am only familiar with the case when $epsilon$ only appears on the $y''$ term. Here I think we can not just plug in
$y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $, since there are two possible boundary layers at $x = 0$ or $x=c$ when $y$ takes the non constant solution?
And for what type of ODEs we can simply substitute in $y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $ to get the asymptotic?
differential-equations asymptotics perturbation-theory
asked 6 hours ago
Xiao
4,31211333
The question follows this exercise in Bender and Orszag.
We would like to find the asymptotic for
$$y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2text and y(1) = 1$$
Dropping the epsilon term, we get two solutions
$$y=1 text or y = 1- frac1x-c$$
and the answers there said we will "add perturbation terms to either $y$ or $(y-1)^-1$." What does this mean exactly?
And also what is a standard perturbation method for equations like $y' - (y-1)^2 = epsilon fracy^2x^2$?
I am only familiar with the case when $epsilon$ only appears on the $y''$ term. Here I think we can not just plug in
$y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $, since there are two possible boundary layers at $x = 0$ or $x=c$ when $y$ takes the non constant solution?
And for what type of ODEs we can simply substitute in $y = y_0+ epsilon y_1 + epsilon^2 y_2+ cdots $ to get the asymptotic?
differential-equations asymptotics perturbation-theory
asked 6 hours ago
Xiao
4,31211333
asked 6 hours ago
Xiao
4,31211333
asked 6 hours ago
Xiao
4,31211333
asked 6 hours ago
Xiao
4,31211333
4,31211333
add a comment |Â
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I cannot answer all of your questions, partially because I do not understand some of your questions (such as the "What does this mean exactly?" question, as this differential equation here is different from the one in the link). I do not understand why you say "Here I think we cannot just plug in [...]," since this procedure works perfectly fine in this problem. However, in this answer, I shall show you that you can still use the standard perturbation theory to deal with this differential equation.
I shall write $y=f^epsilon$ for the solution to
$$y'(x)-big(y(x)-1big)^2=epsilon,fracbig(y(x)big)^2x^2text and y(1)=1,.tag*$$
Note that $f^0$ is the constant function $f^0equiv 1$. Thus, for small $epsilon$, we expect that $f^epsilon$ is obtained from $f^0$ by via the perturbation theory. That is, for some functions $f_0,f_1,f_2,ldots$, we have
$$f^epsilon=f_0+epsilon,f_1+epsilon^2,f_2+ldots,,$$
where $f_0=f^0$. Observe that $f_k(1)=0$ for all $k=1,2,3,ldots$.
The equation for $f_1$ is obtained by ignoring terms of oder $epsilon^2$ or higher. From (*) and from $f_0=f^0equiv1$, we get
$$epsilon,f_1'(x)=fracepsilonx^2text or f_1'(x)=frac1x^2,.$$
Consequently, $$f_1(x)=int_1^x,frac1t^2,textdt=1-frac1x,.$$
The equation for $f_2$ is obtained by ignoring terms of order $epsilon^3$ or higher. Since $f_0(x)=1$ and $f_1(x)=1-frac1x$, we find that, from (*),
$$left(fracepsilonx^2+epsilon^2,f'_2(x)right)-epsilon^2left(1-frac1xright)^2=fracepsilonx^2,Biggl(1+2,epsilonleft(1-frac1xright)Biggr),.$$
Therefore,
$$f_2'(x)-left(1-frac1xright)^2=frac2x^2left(1-frac1xright),,text or f_2'(x)=1-frac2x+frac3x^2-frac2x^3,,$$
yielding
$$f_2(x)=int_1^x,left(1-frac1t^2right),textdt=(x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right),.$$
You can continue so on and so forth, but the deeper you go, the more complicated the differential equation will be. However, for small $epsilon$ and for $x$ near $1$, you can see that the approximation
$$y(x)approx 1+epsilon,left(frac(x-1)xright)+epsilon^2,Biggl((x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right)Biggr)$$
gives an estimate of the solution to (*) very well (check this with a numerical solver or something alike). For $x$ further away from $1$ and for larger $epsilon$, you are going to have to find more terms.
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
Thank you very much for the answer. My equation is in the comment of the answer in the link. And also when can we use this standard perturbation series for odes with $epsilon$ term. I know when we have the singular case $epsilon y'' + a(x) y' + b(x) y = 0$, we will need to use a WKB series instead of the stadnard perturbation series, is there a general rule to follow for which one to use?
– Xiao
4 hours ago
I am not aware of criteria when the standard perturbation series should not be used, apart from the singular case. However, it is never a promise (except for few cases) that the perturbation series of any kind will produce a good approximation far away from the boundary points. Usually, you will have two choices: get more terms or do the approximations at other points.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
1
Thank you, and maybe one more classic example is the Duffing equation $y'' +y + epsilon y^3 = 0$ where the standard perturbation series will diverge as $x$ goes to infinity while the exact solution stays bounded.
– Xiao
4 hours ago
That is why, sometimes, I would apply perturbation theory at many $x$'s. So I don't have to deal with the divergence problem. Say, you know the value at $x=0$ but you want the value at $x=10$. I would then apply the perturbation at $x=0$ to get an approximate value at $x=0.1$. Then, using what I know at $x=0.1$, I recompute and get the value at $x=0.2$, etc, etc. So, I don't have to go far, and need only to get the perturbation series up to only a few terms. It is probably more accurate than compute the series once and use at all $x$.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I cannot answer all of your questions, partially because I do not understand some of your questions (such as the "What does this mean exactly?" question, as this differential equation here is different from the one in the link). I do not understand why you say "Here I think we cannot just plug in [...]," since this procedure works perfectly fine in this problem. However, in this answer, I shall show you that you can still use the standard perturbation theory to deal with this differential equation.
I shall write $y=f^epsilon$ for the solution to
$$y'(x)-big(y(x)-1big)^2=epsilon,fracbig(y(x)big)^2x^2text and y(1)=1,.tag*$$
Note that $f^0$ is the constant function $f^0equiv 1$. Thus, for small $epsilon$, we expect that $f^epsilon$ is obtained from $f^0$ by via the perturbation theory. That is, for some functions $f_0,f_1,f_2,ldots$, we have
$$f^epsilon=f_0+epsilon,f_1+epsilon^2,f_2+ldots,,$$
where $f_0=f^0$. Observe that $f_k(1)=0$ for all $k=1,2,3,ldots$.
The equation for $f_1$ is obtained by ignoring terms of oder $epsilon^2$ or higher. From (*) and from $f_0=f^0equiv1$, we get
$$epsilon,f_1'(x)=fracepsilonx^2text or f_1'(x)=frac1x^2,.$$
Consequently, $$f_1(x)=int_1^x,frac1t^2,textdt=1-frac1x,.$$
The equation for $f_2$ is obtained by ignoring terms of order $epsilon^3$ or higher. Since $f_0(x)=1$ and $f_1(x)=1-frac1x$, we find that, from (*),
$$left(fracepsilonx^2+epsilon^2,f'_2(x)right)-epsilon^2left(1-frac1xright)^2=fracepsilonx^2,Biggl(1+2,epsilonleft(1-frac1xright)Biggr),.$$
Therefore,
$$f_2'(x)-left(1-frac1xright)^2=frac2x^2left(1-frac1xright),,text or f_2'(x)=1-frac2x+frac3x^2-frac2x^3,,$$
yielding
$$f_2(x)=int_1^x,left(1-frac1t^2right),textdt=(x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right),.$$
You can continue so on and so forth, but the deeper you go, the more complicated the differential equation will be. However, for small $epsilon$ and for $x$ near $1$, you can see that the approximation
$$y(x)approx 1+epsilon,left(frac(x-1)xright)+epsilon^2,Biggl((x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right)Biggr)$$
gives an estimate of the solution to (*) very well (check this with a numerical solver or something alike). For $x$ further away from $1$ and for larger $epsilon$, you are going to have to find more terms.
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
Thank you very much for the answer. My equation is in the comment of the answer in the link. And also when can we use this standard perturbation series for odes with $epsilon$ term. I know when we have the singular case $epsilon y'' + a(x) y' + b(x) y = 0$, we will need to use a WKB series instead of the stadnard perturbation series, is there a general rule to follow for which one to use?
– Xiao
4 hours ago
I am not aware of criteria when the standard perturbation series should not be used, apart from the singular case. However, it is never a promise (except for few cases) that the perturbation series of any kind will produce a good approximation far away from the boundary points. Usually, you will have two choices: get more terms or do the approximations at other points.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
1
Thank you, and maybe one more classic example is the Duffing equation $y'' +y + epsilon y^3 = 0$ where the standard perturbation series will diverge as $x$ goes to infinity while the exact solution stays bounded.
– Xiao
4 hours ago
That is why, sometimes, I would apply perturbation theory at many $x$'s. So I don't have to deal with the divergence problem. Say, you know the value at $x=0$ but you want the value at $x=10$. I would then apply the perturbation at $x=0$ to get an approximate value at $x=0.1$. Then, using what I know at $x=0.1$, I recompute and get the value at $x=0.2$, etc, etc. So, I don't have to go far, and need only to get the perturbation series up to only a few terms. It is probably more accurate than compute the series once and use at all $x$.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I cannot answer all of your questions, partially because I do not understand some of your questions (such as the "What does this mean exactly?" question, as this differential equation here is different from the one in the link). I do not understand why you say "Here I think we cannot just plug in [...]," since this procedure works perfectly fine in this problem. However, in this answer, I shall show you that you can still use the standard perturbation theory to deal with this differential equation.
I shall write $y=f^epsilon$ for the solution to
$$y'(x)-big(y(x)-1big)^2=epsilon,fracbig(y(x)big)^2x^2text and y(1)=1,.tag*$$
Note that $f^0$ is the constant function $f^0equiv 1$. Thus, for small $epsilon$, we expect that $f^epsilon$ is obtained from $f^0$ by via the perturbation theory. That is, for some functions $f_0,f_1,f_2,ldots$, we have
$$f^epsilon=f_0+epsilon,f_1+epsilon^2,f_2+ldots,,$$
where $f_0=f^0$. Observe that $f_k(1)=0$ for all $k=1,2,3,ldots$.
The equation for $f_1$ is obtained by ignoring terms of oder $epsilon^2$ or higher. From (*) and from $f_0=f^0equiv1$, we get
$$epsilon,f_1'(x)=fracepsilonx^2text or f_1'(x)=frac1x^2,.$$
Consequently, $$f_1(x)=int_1^x,frac1t^2,textdt=1-frac1x,.$$
The equation for $f_2$ is obtained by ignoring terms of order $epsilon^3$ or higher. Since $f_0(x)=1$ and $f_1(x)=1-frac1x$, we find that, from (*),
$$left(fracepsilonx^2+epsilon^2,f'_2(x)right)-epsilon^2left(1-frac1xright)^2=fracepsilonx^2,Biggl(1+2,epsilonleft(1-frac1xright)Biggr),.$$
Therefore,
$$f_2'(x)-left(1-frac1xright)^2=frac2x^2left(1-frac1xright),,text or f_2'(x)=1-frac2x+frac3x^2-frac2x^3,,$$
yielding
$$f_2(x)=int_1^x,left(1-frac1t^2right),textdt=(x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right),.$$
You can continue so on and so forth, but the deeper you go, the more complicated the differential equation will be. However, for small $epsilon$ and for $x$ near $1$, you can see that the approximation
$$y(x)approx 1+epsilon,left(frac(x-1)xright)+epsilon^2,Biggl((x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right)Biggr)$$
gives an estimate of the solution to (*) very well (check this with a numerical solver or something alike). For $x$ further away from $1$ and for larger $epsilon$, you are going to have to find more terms.
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
Thank you very much for the answer. My equation is in the comment of the answer in the link. And also when can we use this standard perturbation series for odes with $epsilon$ term. I know when we have the singular case $epsilon y'' + a(x) y' + b(x) y = 0$, we will need to use a WKB series instead of the stadnard perturbation series, is there a general rule to follow for which one to use?
– Xiao
4 hours ago
I am not aware of criteria when the standard perturbation series should not be used, apart from the singular case. However, it is never a promise (except for few cases) that the perturbation series of any kind will produce a good approximation far away from the boundary points. Usually, you will have two choices: get more terms or do the approximations at other points.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
1
Thank you, and maybe one more classic example is the Duffing equation $y'' +y + epsilon y^3 = 0$ where the standard perturbation series will diverge as $x$ goes to infinity while the exact solution stays bounded.
– Xiao
4 hours ago
That is why, sometimes, I would apply perturbation theory at many $x$'s. So I don't have to deal with the divergence problem. Say, you know the value at $x=0$ but you want the value at $x=10$. I would then apply the perturbation at $x=0$ to get an approximate value at $x=0.1$. Then, using what I know at $x=0.1$, I recompute and get the value at $x=0.2$, etc, etc. So, I don't have to go far, and need only to get the perturbation series up to only a few terms. It is probably more accurate than compute the series once and use at all $x$.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
up vote
1
down vote
accepted
I cannot answer all of your questions, partially because I do not understand some of your questions (such as the "What does this mean exactly?" question, as this differential equation here is different from the one in the link). I do not understand why you say "Here I think we cannot just plug in [...]," since this procedure works perfectly fine in this problem. However, in this answer, I shall show you that you can still use the standard perturbation theory to deal with this differential equation.
I shall write $y=f^epsilon$ for the solution to
$$y'(x)-big(y(x)-1big)^2=epsilon,fracbig(y(x)big)^2x^2text and y(1)=1,.tag*$$
Note that $f^0$ is the constant function $f^0equiv 1$. Thus, for small $epsilon$, we expect that $f^epsilon$ is obtained from $f^0$ by via the perturbation theory. That is, for some functions $f_0,f_1,f_2,ldots$, we have
$$f^epsilon=f_0+epsilon,f_1+epsilon^2,f_2+ldots,,$$
where $f_0=f^0$. Observe that $f_k(1)=0$ for all $k=1,2,3,ldots$.
The equation for $f_1$ is obtained by ignoring terms of oder $epsilon^2$ or higher. From (*) and from $f_0=f^0equiv1$, we get
$$epsilon,f_1'(x)=fracepsilonx^2text or f_1'(x)=frac1x^2,.$$
Consequently, $$f_1(x)=int_1^x,frac1t^2,textdt=1-frac1x,.$$
The equation for $f_2$ is obtained by ignoring terms of order $epsilon^3$ or higher. Since $f_0(x)=1$ and $f_1(x)=1-frac1x$, we find that, from (*),
$$left(fracepsilonx^2+epsilon^2,f'_2(x)right)-epsilon^2left(1-frac1xright)^2=fracepsilonx^2,Biggl(1+2,epsilonleft(1-frac1xright)Biggr),.$$
Therefore,
$$f_2'(x)-left(1-frac1xright)^2=frac2x^2left(1-frac1xright),,text or f_2'(x)=1-frac2x+frac3x^2-frac2x^3,,$$
yielding
$$f_2(x)=int_1^x,left(1-frac1t^2right),textdt=(x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right),.$$
You can continue so on and so forth, but the deeper you go, the more complicated the differential equation will be. However, for small $epsilon$ and for $x$ near $1$, you can see that the approximation
$$y(x)approx 1+epsilon,left(frac(x-1)xright)+epsilon^2,Biggl((x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right)Biggr)$$
gives an estimate of the solution to (*) very well (check this with a numerical solver or something alike). For $x$ further away from $1$ and for larger $epsilon$, you are going to have to find more terms.
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
I cannot answer all of your questions, partially because I do not understand some of your questions (such as the "What does this mean exactly?" question, as this differential equation here is different from the one in the link). I do not understand why you say "Here I think we cannot just plug in [...]," since this procedure works perfectly fine in this problem. However, in this answer, I shall show you that you can still use the standard perturbation theory to deal with this differential equation.
I shall write $y=f^epsilon$ for the solution to
$$y'(x)-big(y(x)-1big)^2=epsilon,fracbig(y(x)big)^2x^2text and y(1)=1,.tag*$$
Note that $f^0$ is the constant function $f^0equiv 1$. Thus, for small $epsilon$, we expect that $f^epsilon$ is obtained from $f^0$ by via the perturbation theory. That is, for some functions $f_0,f_1,f_2,ldots$, we have
$$f^epsilon=f_0+epsilon,f_1+epsilon^2,f_2+ldots,,$$
where $f_0=f^0$. Observe that $f_k(1)=0$ for all $k=1,2,3,ldots$.
The equation for $f_1$ is obtained by ignoring terms of oder $epsilon^2$ or higher. From (*) and from $f_0=f^0equiv1$, we get
$$epsilon,f_1'(x)=fracepsilonx^2text or f_1'(x)=frac1x^2,.$$
Consequently, $$f_1(x)=int_1^x,frac1t^2,textdt=1-frac1x,.$$
The equation for $f_2$ is obtained by ignoring terms of order $epsilon^3$ or higher. Since $f_0(x)=1$ and $f_1(x)=1-frac1x$, we find that, from (*),
$$left(fracepsilonx^2+epsilon^2,f'_2(x)right)-epsilon^2left(1-frac1xright)^2=fracepsilonx^2,Biggl(1+2,epsilonleft(1-frac1xright)Biggr),.$$
Therefore,
$$f_2'(x)-left(1-frac1xright)^2=frac2x^2left(1-frac1xright),,text or f_2'(x)=1-frac2x+frac3x^2-frac2x^3,,$$
yielding
$$f_2(x)=int_1^x,left(1-frac1t^2right),textdt=(x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right),.$$
You can continue so on and so forth, but the deeper you go, the more complicated the differential equation will be. However, for small $epsilon$ and for $x$ near $1$, you can see that the approximation
$$y(x)approx 1+epsilon,left(frac(x-1)xright)+epsilon^2,Biggl((x-1)-2,ln(x)+3,left(1-frac1xright)-left(1-frac1x^2right)Biggr)$$
gives an estimate of the solution to (*) very well (check this with a numerical solver or something alike). For $x$ further away from $1$ and for larger $epsilon$, you are going to have to find more terms.
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
edited 4 hours ago
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
answered 5 hours ago
Batominovski
22.2k22675
22.2k22675
Thank you very much for the answer. My equation is in the comment of the answer in the link. And also when can we use this standard perturbation series for odes with $epsilon$ term. I know when we have the singular case $epsilon y'' + a(x) y' + b(x) y = 0$, we will need to use a WKB series instead of the stadnard perturbation series, is there a general rule to follow for which one to use?
– Xiao
4 hours ago
I am not aware of criteria when the standard perturbation series should not be used, apart from the singular case. However, it is never a promise (except for few cases) that the perturbation series of any kind will produce a good approximation far away from the boundary points. Usually, you will have two choices: get more terms or do the approximations at other points.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
1
Thank you, and maybe one more classic example is the Duffing equation $y'' +y + epsilon y^3 = 0$ where the standard perturbation series will diverge as $x$ goes to infinity while the exact solution stays bounded.
– Xiao
4 hours ago
That is why, sometimes, I would apply perturbation theory at many $x$'s. So I don't have to deal with the divergence problem. Say, you know the value at $x=0$ but you want the value at $x=10$. I would then apply the perturbation at $x=0$ to get an approximate value at $x=0.1$. Then, using what I know at $x=0.1$, I recompute and get the value at $x=0.2$, etc, etc. So, I don't have to go far, and need only to get the perturbation series up to only a few terms. It is probably more accurate than compute the series once and use at all $x$.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Thank you very much for the answer. My equation is in the comment of the answer in the link. And also when can we use this standard perturbation series for odes with $epsilon$ term. I know when we have the singular case $epsilon y'' + a(x) y' + b(x) y = 0$, we will need to use a WKB series instead of the stadnard perturbation series, is there a general rule to follow for which one to use?
– Xiao
4 hours ago
I am not aware of criteria when the standard perturbation series should not be used, apart from the singular case. However, it is never a promise (except for few cases) that the perturbation series of any kind will produce a good approximation far away from the boundary points. Usually, you will have two choices: get more terms or do the approximations at other points.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
1
Thank you, and maybe one more classic example is the Duffing equation $y'' +y + epsilon y^3 = 0$ where the standard perturbation series will diverge as $x$ goes to infinity while the exact solution stays bounded.
– Xiao
4 hours ago
That is why, sometimes, I would apply perturbation theory at many $x$'s. So I don't have to deal with the divergence problem. Say, you know the value at $x=0$ but you want the value at $x=10$. I would then apply the perturbation at $x=0$ to get an approximate value at $x=0.1$. Then, using what I know at $x=0.1$, I recompute and get the value at $x=0.2$, etc, etc. So, I don't have to go far, and need only to get the perturbation series up to only a few terms. It is probably more accurate than compute the series once and use at all $x$.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
Thank you very much for the answer. My equation is in the comment of the answer in the link. And also when can we use this standard perturbation series for odes with $epsilon$ term. I know when we have the singular case $epsilon y'' + a(x) y' + b(x) y = 0$, we will need to use a WKB series instead of the stadnard perturbation series, is there a general rule to follow for which one to use?
– Xiao
4 hours ago
Thank you very much for the answer. My equation is in the comment of the answer in the link. And also when can we use this standard perturbation series for odes with $epsilon$ term. I know when we have the singular case $epsilon y'' + a(x) y' + b(x) y = 0$, we will need to use a WKB series instead of the stadnard perturbation series, is there a general rule to follow for which one to use?
– Xiao
4 hours ago
I am not aware of criteria when the standard perturbation series should not be used, apart from the singular case. However, it is never a promise (except for few cases) that the perturbation series of any kind will produce a good approximation far away from the boundary points. Usually, you will have two choices: get more terms or do the approximations at other points.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
I am not aware of criteria when the standard perturbation series should not be used, apart from the singular case. However, it is never a promise (except for few cases) that the perturbation series of any kind will produce a good approximation far away from the boundary points. Usually, you will have two choices: get more terms or do the approximations at other points.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
1
1
Thank you, and maybe one more classic example is the Duffing equation $y'' +y + epsilon y^3 = 0$ where the standard perturbation series will diverge as $x$ goes to infinity while the exact solution stays bounded.
– Xiao
4 hours ago
Thank you, and maybe one more classic example is the Duffing equation $y'' +y + epsilon y^3 = 0$ where the standard perturbation series will diverge as $x$ goes to infinity while the exact solution stays bounded.
– Xiao
4 hours ago
That is why, sometimes, I would apply perturbation theory at many $x$'s. So I don't have to deal with the divergence problem. Say, you know the value at $x=0$ but you want the value at $x=10$. I would then apply the perturbation at $x=0$ to get an approximate value at $x=0.1$. Then, using what I know at $x=0.1$, I recompute and get the value at $x=0.2$, etc, etc. So, I don't have to go far, and need only to get the perturbation series up to only a few terms. It is probably more accurate than compute the series once and use at all $x$.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
That is why, sometimes, I would apply perturbation theory at many $x$'s. So I don't have to deal with the divergence problem. Say, you know the value at $x=0$ but you want the value at $x=10$. I would then apply the perturbation at $x=0$ to get an approximate value at $x=0.1$. Then, using what I know at $x=0.1$, I recompute and get the value at $x=0.2$, etc, etc. So, I don't have to go far, and need only to get the perturbation series up to only a few terms. It is probably more accurate than compute the series once and use at all $x$.
– Batominovski
4 hours ago
add a comment |Â
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f2873235%2fperturbation-method-for-y-y-12-epsilon-fracy2x2-and-y1-1%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password