Skip to main content

bugs - DSolve solution depends on ordering of equation


Bug introduced in 8.0 or earlier and persisting through 11.1.0 or later




I am trying to obtain the general solution, $G(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4)$ to the very easy system of PDEs: $$ \partial_{x_3} G(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) - \partial_{x_1} F(x_1,x_2) = 0, \\ \partial_{x_4} G(x_1,x_2,x_3,x_4) - \partial_{x_2} F(x_1,x_2) = 0 \label{a}\tag{1} $$ and in so doing I am finding the following strange behaviour in Mathematica 10.4.


DSolve[
{D[G[x1, x2, x3, x4], x3] == D[F[x1, x2], x1],
D[G[x1, x2, x3, x4], x4] == D[F[x1, x2], x2]},
G[x1, x2, x3, x4], {x1, x2, x3, x4}
]


returns what I expect:


{{G[x1,x2,x3,x4]->C[1][x1,x2]+x4 (F^(0,1))[x1,x2]+x3 (F^(1,0))[x1,x2]}}

However, if I just reorder my input:


DSolve[
{D[F[x1,x2],x1]==D[G[x1,x2,x3,x4],x3],
D[F[x1,x2],x2]==D[G[x1,x2,x3,x4],x4]},
G[x1,x2,x3,x4],{x1,x2,x3,x4}
]


Mathematica returns nothing! This obviously doesn't cause a problem for this simple example. However, the system I get from some other portion of the code is given in the form of (\ref{a}) which, if plugged into DSolve in that form, gives the same null result. This is because if I have Mathematica Simplify the system, I get a system of the second form which gives a null result. I can do something hacky and have it solve for the derivative of $G$ in terms of everything else, but I would prefer to avoid this.


Update: This is not the only bug of this form in DSolve. It appears the order in which the different equations appear also matters (for 3 or more equations), see e.g. below


For


badPDE = {D[G[x0, x1, y0, y1, z0, z1], z1] == D[F[x0, y0, z0], z0],
D[G[x0, x1, y0, y1, z0, z1], y1] == D[F[x0, y0, z0], y0],
D[G[x0, x1, y0, y1, z0, z1], x1] == D[F[x0, y0, z0], x0]}

we get


DSolve[badPDE, G, {x0,x1,y0,y1,z0,z1}]


failing in the same manner as above, it echos the command. However,


DSolve[Reverse[badPDE], G, {x0,x1,y0,y1,z0,z1}]

gives the correct answer:


{{G->Function[{x0,x1,y0,y1,z0,z1},C[1][x0,y0,z0]+z1 (F^(0,0,1))    
[x0,y0,z0]+y1 (F^(0,1,0))[x0,y0,z0]+x1 (F^(1,0,0))[x0,y0,z0]]}}

I am adding this to my original bug report with WRI.



Answer



This is a workaround, as requested in a comment and extended to handle the updated problem. The idea is to solve the pde system for the derivatives so that we can put the derivatives of G on the left-hand side of the equation. There is a hard-coded internal pattern that assumes the problem will be set up this way. Solve returns these in the form of a Rule. Replacing Rule by Equal converts them back to equations, but with the derivatives on the LHS. Update: Additionally, the hard-coded pattern requires the derivatives of G to be in a the same order as the arguments' order, that is, D[.., x0] ==.., D[.., y0] ==.., D[.., z0] ==... This can be fixed by sorting the derivatives of G.



normal[U_] = Function[pde, 
Reverse@Sort@First@Solve[pde,
Cases[Variables[pde /. Equal -> List], _?(! FreeQ[#, U] &)]] /.
Rule -> Equal];

DSolve[normal[G]@{D[F[x1, x2], x1] == D[G[x1, x2, x3, x4], x3],
D[F[x1, x2], x2] == D[G[x1, x2, x3, x4], x4]}, G, {x1, x2, x3, x4}]

Mathematica graphics


N.B. We're assuming we've got a linear first-order pde system here. (A similar approach could work on higher-order systems, with some work.)



Example in the update


DSolve[normal[G]@badPDE, G, {x0, x1, y0, y1, z0, z1}]

Mathematica graphics


It seems the internal code assumes in the 3D case that the equations have been set up in the order


Grad[G, {x1, y1, z1}] == V /; Curl[V, {x1, y1, z1}] == {0, 0, 0}

This suggests this change to normal:


normal[u_, vars_] = Function[pde, First@Solve[pde, Grad[u, vars]] /. Rule -> Equal];


And this change in its usage, with the arguments being specified:


normal[G[x0, x1, y0, y1, z0, z1], {x1, y1, z1}]@badPDE

Here is another way to use normal to fix DSolve:


ClearAll[gradify];
SetAttributes[gradify, HoldAll];
gradify[code_DSolve] := Internal`InheritedBlock[{DSolve`DSolvePDEs},
Unprotect[DSolve`DSolvePDEs];
DSolve`DSolvePDEs[eqs_, {u_}, v : {x_, y_, z_}, c_, i_] :=
With[{gradeqs = normal[u @@ v, v]@eqs},

DSolve`DSolvePDEs[gradeqs, {u}, {x, y, z}, c, i] /; gradeqs =!= eqs];
Protect[DSolve`DSolvePDEs];
code
]

Example:


gradify@DSolve[badPDE, G, {x0, x1, y0, y1, z0, z1}]

Mathematica graphics


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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....