Skip to main content

Assigning an analytical approximation to the error function erf(x)


Working with some iterative integral equations, I have Gaussian density functions involved therein. Integrating the Gaussian function I obtain the error function. When I take the second integration, Mathematica is not able to provide an analytical expression. Because apparently there is no closed-form expression for the integral of the error function.


Question: Is it possible the tell Mathematica to consider the error function as some given exact expression which is analytically integrable?


For example


$$\mathrm{erf}(x)=\frac{1}{(1+a_1x+a_2x^2+a_3x^3+a_4x^4)^4}$$


for some appropriate constants $a_1$, $a_2$, $a_3$, $a_4$?




Answer



You could unprotect Erf and redefine it as you like it.


Unprotect[Erf];
(* Here you define the constants and your erf approximation *)
a1=...; etc.
Erf[x_] := 1/(1 + a1 x + a2 x^2 + a3 x^3 + a4 x^4)^4;
(* Here you perform your calculations with the approximate value of erf *)
myComplexCalculation = Erf[x]/2
(* When you are done, clear your definition and reprotect Erf *)
Clear[Erf];

Protect[Erf];

This can be dangerous but, as long as you know what you are doing, it will work.


A more local workaround is to enclose your 'approximate' calculation within a Block that blocks the definition of Erf:


Block[ {Erf},
(* Here you define the constants and your erf approximation *)
a1=...; etc.
Erf[x_] := 1/(1 + a1 x + a2 x^2 + a3 x^3 + a4 x^4)^4;

(* Here you perform your calculations with the approximate value of erf *)

myComplexCalculation = Erf[x]/2
]

Is this what you were looking for or was it the actual expression for the approximation?


As a more general approach to temporarily modifying built-in functions within the walls of a scoping construct, you might also want to have a look at the undocumented function InheritedBlock, described in this post on Stack Overflow. It appears that it will copy all definitions associated with the symbol you want to block, so that you can change, within the block only the part you need to. Basically, while


Block[ {builtinFun},
code redefining builtinFun from scratch
and using the new builtinFun
]


would give you a completely clean symbol for builtinFun to code from scratch, using


Internal`InheritedBlock[ {builtinFun},
code redefining parts of the inherited builtinFun
and using the modified builtinFun
]

would give you a completely modifiable copy of builtinFun, so that you can modify only the parts you need to modify.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...