Skip to main content

options - What does MaxStepFraction do?


I find that with NDSolve[...] while solving a partial differential equation, changing the MaxStepFraction from 1/10 to say 1/60, improves convergence.


Without going into too many details about the PDE itself, is the MaxStepFraction the grid sized used? I generally find that when I use a large step fraction of say 1/30 instead of 1/60, I get an error message that says:



NDSolve::eerr: Warning: Scaled local spatial error estimate of 1484.278641749214at t = 240279.84981818125 in the direction of independent variable x is much greater than prescribed error tolerance. Grid spacing with 31 points may be too large to achieve the desired accuracy or precision. A singularity may have formed or you may want to specify a smaller grid spacing using the MaxStepSize or MinPoints method options. >>



Am I to understand that for a large step fraction, my equation either get's stiff (as the step size is large/grid is too coarse)?



EDIT 1:


My 4th order non-linear PDE generally looks like:


h_t + N(h[t,x],h[t,x]^2,h[t,x]^3,h[t,x]^4) = 0


Where N(...) is the non-linear portion.


EDIT 2:


I used


Needs["DifferentialEquations`InterpolatingFunctionAnatomy`"];

and


hGrid = InterpolatingFunctionGrid[hSol];  

{nX, nY, nT} =Drop[Dimensions[hGrid], -1]

Where hSol is my interpolating function result that NDSolve provides, and found that nx,ny and nT are respectively: 41,41,298 when I used MaxStepFraction->1/40. So I am guessing, that MaxStepFraction-> does define the spatial grid.


Any thoughts? Comments?



Answer



The documentation is fairly clear on this:



MaxStepFraction is an option to functions like NDSolve that specifies the maximum fraction of the total range to cover in a single step.



In simpler terms, you can think of MaxStepFraction as the inverse of the number of intervals in the total range, whereas MaxStepSize is the length of an interval. The following graphic should make the difference clear:



enter image description here


So in other words, setting MaxStepFraction = 1/10 and setting MaxStepSize = L/10 will give you the same result. The documentation linked above also has an example that demonstrates this:


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1.