Skip to main content

differential equations - Should DSolve always return solution with constant of integration?


Bug introduced in 10.0.0 and fixed in 10.0.2




Clear[y,x];
DSolve[D[y[x], x] - y[x]^2 + y[x]*Sin[x] - Cos[x] == 0, y[x], x,

GeneratedParameters -> C]

or


DSolve[D[y[x], x] - y[x]^2 + y[x]*Sin[x] - Cos[x] == 0, y[x], x]

both return a solution that does not include C[1], the constant of integration.


{{y[x] -> Sin[x]}}

The question is: Should DSolve always return an arbitrary constant? Even though the answer is correct, it is missing C[1] hence this is a particular solution.


If DSolve does not have to generate a constant of integration in the solution of a differential equation, then what caused it not to generate it in this specific case?



Update:


Let me add a solution found by Maple for this, which does include a constant of integration:


Clear[C,y,x];
eq = Derivative[1][y][x] - y[x]^2 + y[x]*Sin[x] - Cos[x] == 0;
eq /. y -> (- Exp[-Cos[#]]/(C[1] + Integrate[ Exp[-Cos[#]], x]) + Sin[#] &);
Simplify[%]
(* True *)

So, the above is a general solution with a constant of integration that solves the same differential equation.



Answer




I think it's a bug.


Tracing


Tracing the evaluation of DSolve as the following:


eq = D[y[x], x] - y[x]^2 + y[x]*Sin[x] - Cos[x] == 0;

traceRes = Trace[DSolve[eq, y[x], x,
GeneratedParameters -> ThisIsForGeneralC],
{TraceInternal -> True,
TraceOff -> _Message}];


and formatting (using the levelIndentFunc function I mentioned here) and exporting the result (it will be around 200 MByte):


Export["[Trace-result] DSolve.txt", levelIndentFunc @ traceRes, "String"]

Searching the "unique" footprint ThisIsForGeneralC we made on purpose, it's not hard to find where the problem comes from.


Analysis


Here, from the trace result we can see, MMA eventually arrives a point like:


DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f = {{{y[x] -> E^Cos[x]*DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`const[2] + E^Cos[x]*Integrate[DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`const[1]/E^Cos[K[1]], {K[1], 1, x}]}}}
DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f = DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f[[1,1,1,2]]; {DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f, DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`g} = {Coefficient[DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f, DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`const[1]], Coefficient[DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f, DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`const[2]]}; {{y[x] -> -((ThisIsForGeneralC[1]*D[DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f, x] + D[DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`g, x])/(DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`h*(ThisIsForGeneralC[1]*DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`f + DSolve`DSolveFirstOrderODEDump`g)))}}

which is actually



f = {{{y[x] -> E^Cos[x]*const[2] + E^Cos[x]*Integrate[const[1]/E^Cos[K[1]], {K[1], 1, x}]}}}; 
f = f[[1, 1, 1, 2]]

intermedia f


{f, g} = {Coefficient[f, const[1]], Coefficient[f, const[2]]}
{{y[x] -> -((ThisIsForGeneralC[1]*D[f, x] + D[g, x])/(h*(ThisIsForGeneralC[1]*f + g)))}}

final false result


Note the f = Coefficient[f, const[1]] part, which is incorrectly evaluated to 0! That's the one to blame for our issue!


If we replace f with the correct value:



f = E^Cos[x]*Integrate[E^(-Cos[K[1]]), {K[1], 1, x}];

We'll get effectively the same general solution as the one mentioned in OP:


{{y[x] -> -((ThisIsForGeneralC[1]*D[f, x] + D[g, x])/(h*(ThisIsForGeneralC[1]*f + g)))}}

correct result


Some perhaps fixes coming up to my mind include:



  1. Introducing new rule for Integrate (Please compare Integrate[a b[x], {x, 0, 1}] and Integrate[a b[x], x]); Or

  2. Introducing new rule for Coefficient (Maybe not a good idea); Or


  3. Using method other than Coefficient in DSolve.


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.