Skip to main content

calculus and analysis - Strange result when integrating BesselJ functions


Consider the following integral:


FullSimplify[Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n]r /a]^2,{r,0,a}],
 Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&n>=1&&m\[Element]Integers]
(* ConditionalExpression[1/2 a^2 BesselJ[-1+m,BesselJZero[m,n]]^2,m>-1] *)

This gives part of the orthogonality condition of BesselJ functions (see here, Eq. 53). What I can't figure out is the reason for the ConditionalExpression. Mathematica knows about the relationship:


FullSimplify[BesselJ[-m,x]==(-1)^m BesselJ[m,x],Assumptions->m\[Element]Integers]
(* True *)


and can even calculate the integral given m=-1, for example, explicitly:


Integrate[r BesselJ[-1, BesselJZero[-1, n] r /a]^2, {r, 0, a}]
(* 1/2 a^2 (BesselJ[0,BesselJZero[-1,n]]^2+BesselJ[1,BesselJZero[-1,n]]^2-
 (2 BesselJ[0,BesselJZero[-1,n]] BesselJ[1,BesselJZero[-1,n]])/BesselJZero[-1,n]) *)

But, trying to force Integrate to assume m<=-1 throws an error:


Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n]r /a]^2,{r,0,a},
 Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&n>=1&&m\[Element]Integers&&m<=-1]
(* Integrate::idiv: Integral of r BesselJ[m,(r BesselJZero[m,n])/a]^2 
does not converge on {0,a}.*)


So, why can't it solve it for any (integer) m in the first (or negative integers in the last) scenario?



Edit Additional strangeness based on belisarius's comment. If you directly integrate something like:


Integrate[r BesselJ[15,BesselJZero[15,n] r/a]^2,{r,0,a},Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&n>=1]

it outputs a giant monstrosity. Yet, this monstrosity is (nearly) equivalent to the smaller expression:


N[(% /. n -> 1)]-
 N[(1/2 a^2 BesselJ[-1 + 15, BesselJZero[15, n]]^2 /. n -> 1)]
(* 6.12357*10^-16 a^2 *)


It seems that it uses a different method for integrating these functions with an explicit value for m than without. And for some reason doesn't use the (-1)^m BesselJ identity for solving the m<=-1 cases.



Edit 2 Based on J.M.'s answer this gets stranger. First of all, integrating:


Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n] r/a]^2,{r,0,a},
 Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&Positive[n]&&m\[Element]Integers&&Negative[m]]

works fine. As does,


Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n] r/a]^2,{r,0,a},
 Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&n>=1&&m\[Element]Integers&&Negative[m]]


and even


Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n] r/a]^2,{r,0,a},
 Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&n>=1&&m\[Element]Integers&&m<0]

But,


Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n] r/a]^2,{r,0,a},
 Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&n>=1&&m\[Element]Integers&&m<=-1]

fails with the error from above.



Furthermore, even though


Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n] r/a]^2,{r,0,a},
  Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&n>=1&&m\[Element]Integers&&Negative[m]]==
 Integrate[r BesselJ[m,BesselJZero[m,n] r/a]^2,{r,0,a},
  Assumptions->n\[Element]Integers&&Positive[n]&&m\[Element]Integers&&Positive[m]]

(* True *)

the timing to solve these are way different. With


Integrate[ snip Positive[m]];//Timing

Integrate[ snip Negative[m]];//Timing

(* {15.538, Null} 
   {0.421, Null} *)

which is a huge increase in time for essentially the same integral. Any further ideas?



Answer



While trying to investigate this, I hit upon the following integral:


Integrate[BesselJ[Floor[m], r]^2, {r, 0, 1}, Assumptions -> m <= -1]



0



This is obviously an incorrect result. It only appears when I add the assumption above. This leads me to suspect that the failure of Eli's integral in the same range of m is related to this - and I'd call it a bug that needs to be reported.


Edit


I did report that error in 2012 [TS 26556], but got the reply that it's expected behavior. The argument for this claim given in their initial reply was that this is equivalent to specifying m to be an integer, which is a non-generic case that gets ignored. However, the non-generic case here would not yield a result 0 for the integral with non-integer and negative m, so the behavior shouldn't be expected at all.


He also said: "Using Floor is an interesting way to restrict the evaluation to integer values of the parameter and Integrate doesn't appear to be handling it well, so I've forwarded the example to our developers."


Unfortunately, I didn't hear back, and the bug hasn't been fixed as of version 10.1.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more