Skip to main content

numerical integration - Solution of a singular integral equation using interpolation and truncated methods


I am trying to code the following integral equation to find the solution numerically using Mathematica.


First we define the following functions:



phi[x_]:=Piecewise[{{1, 0 < x < 1}}, 0]

psi1[x_] := (phi[2 x-1] - phi[2 x]);

psijk[x_, j_, k_] := (Sqrt[2])^j psi1[-2^j x - k]

f[x_] := 1/1155 (112 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + x (144 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + x (1155 + 256 (-1 + x)^(3/4) - 1280 x^(3/4) - (1155 + 512 (-1 + x)^(3/4)) x + 1024 x^(7/4))));

exactsoln[x_] := x^2 (1 - x);


I am trying to solve the following integral equation for u (x) (numerically). where


u[x] + Integrate[(x - t)^(-1/4)*u[t], {t, 0, x}] - 
   Integrate[(x - t)^(-3/4)*u[t], {t, 0, 1}] = f[x];

where f[x] is defined as above. Here is the numerical scheme. The approximated solution \approx[x] which can be written as


approxsoln[x_, n_] := 
 Sum[c[j, k]*psijk[x, j, k], {j, 0, n}, {k, -2^n, 2^n - 1}]

Then, we will end up by


Sum[c[j, k]*(psijk[x, j, k] - 

     Integrate[(x - t)^(-1/4)* psijk[t, j, k], {t, 0, x}] - 
     Integrate[(x - t)^(-1/4)* psijk[t, j, k], {t, 0, 1}]), {j, 0, n}, {k, -2^n, 2^n - 1}];

I think it is worth to try for n=10 first.



Answer



The numerical method I suggested here also works for this case.It uses expression describing the integral Integrate[(x - t)^(-1/4),t]


f[x_] := 1/
    1155 (112 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + 
     x (144 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + 
        x (1155 + 256 (-1 + x)^(3/4) - 

           1280 x^(3/4) - (1155 + 512 (-1 + x)^(3/4)) x + 
           1024 x^(7/4))));
ker[t_, x_] := -(4/3) (-t + x)^(3/4)

np = 101; points = fun = Table[Null, {np}];
Table[points[[i]] = i/np, {i, np}];
sol = Unique[] & /@ points;
Do[fun[[i]] = f[t] /. t -> points[[i]], {i, np}]; sol1 = 
 sol /. First@
   Solve[Table[

     sol[[j]] - 
       Sum[.5*(sol[[i]] + 
           sol[[i + 1]])*(ker[points[[i + 1]], points[[j]]] - 
           ker[points[[i]], points[[j]]]), {i, 1, np - 1}] - 
       Sum[.5*(sol[[i]] + 
           sol[[i + 1]])*(ker[points[[i + 1]], points[[j]]] - 
           ker[points[[i]], points[[j]]])*If[i >= j, 0, 1], {i, 1, 
         np - 1}] == fun[[j]], {j, 1, np}], sol];
u = Transpose[{points, Re[sol1]}];
Show[Plot[x^2*(1 - x), {x, 0, 1}, AxesLabel -> {"x", "u"}, 

  PlotStyle -> Blue], ListPlot[u, PlotStyle -> Orange]]

fig1


If we use the algorithm that @Mutaz offers, then a solution for n = 2 (for n = 5, a supercomputer is needed) looks like that


phi[x_] := Piecewise[{{1, 0 <= x < 1}}, 0]
psi1[x_] := (phi[2 x] - phi[2 x - 1]);
psijk[x_, j_, k_] := 
 Piecewise[{{(Sqrt[2])^j psi1[2^j x - k], 
    0 <= j}, {2^j psi1[2^j (x - k)], j < 0}}]
f[x_] := 1/

    1155 (112 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + 
     x (144 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + 
        x (1155 + 256 (-1 + x)^(3/4) - 
           1280 x^(3/4) - (1155 + 512 (-1 + x)^(3/4)) x + 
           1024 x^(7/4))));
exactsoln[x_] := x^2 (1 - x);
(*u[x]-Integrate[(x-t)^(-1/4)*u[t],{t,0,x}]-Integrate[(x-t)^(-1/4)*u[\
t],{t,0,1}]=f[x];*)
sol[x_, n_] := 


Sum[c[j, k]*psijk[x, j, k], {j, -n, n}, {k, -2^n, 2^n - 1}]
     n = 2;  var = 
     Flatten[Table[c[j, k], {j, -n, n, 1}, {k, -2^n, 2^n - 1, 1}]];np = 
     Length[var]; points = 
     Table[Null, {np}];
    Table[points[[i]] = i/np, {i, np}];
eq = ParallelTable[
    sol[points[[i]], n] - 
      Integrate[(points[[i]] - t)^(-1/4)*sol[t, n], {t, 0, 
        points[[i]]}] - 

      Integrate[(points[[i]] - t)^(-1/4)*sol[t, n], {t, 0, 1}] == 
     f[points[[i]]], {i, 1, np}]; 
{b, m} = N[CoefficientArrays[eq, var]];
sol1 = LinearSolve[m, -b];
u = Sum[c[j, k]*psijk[x, j, k], {j, -n, n}, {k, -2^n, 2^n - 1}] /. 
   Table[var[[i]] -> sol1[[i]], {i, Length[var]}];
Show[Plot[x^2*(1 - x), {x, 0, 1}, AxesLabel -> {"x", "u"}, 
  PlotStyle -> Blue, PlotLabel -> Row[{"n = ", n}]], 
 Plot[Re[u], {x, 0, 1}, PlotStyle -> Orange]]


fig2


I will show another method that is in the middle position between what Roman suggested and what the author wants. This method is very accurate.Figure 3 on the right shows the difference between the exact solution and the numerical one with 'n = 3'. This difference is of the order of $10^{-16}$.


psijk[x_, j_] := x^j
f[x_] := 1/
    1155 (112 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + 
     x (144 (-1 + x)^(3/4) + 
        x (1155 + 256 (-1 + x)^(3/4) - 
           1280 x^(3/4) - (1155 + 512 (-1 + x)^(3/4)) x + 
           1024 x^(7/4))));
exactsoln[x_] := x^2 (1 - x);

(*u[x]-Integrate[(x-t)^(-1/4)*u[t],{t,0,x}]-Integrate[(x-t)^(-1/4)*u[\
t],{t,0,1}]=f[x];*)

sol[x_, n_] := Sum[c[j]*psijk[x, j], {j, 0, n}]

n = 3; var = Flatten[Table[c[j], {j, 0, n, 1}]]; np = 
 Length[var]; points = Table[Null, {np}];
Table[points[[i]] = i/np, {i, np}];
eq = ParallelTable[
    sol[points[[i]], n] - 

      Integrate[(points[[i]] - t)^(-1/4)*sol[t, n], {t, 0, 
        points[[i]]}] - 
      Integrate[(points[[i]] - t)^(-1/4)*sol[t, n], {t, 0, 1}] == 
     f[points[[i]]], {i, 1, np}]; // AbsoluteTiming

{b, m} = N[CoefficientArrays[eq, var]];
sol1 = LinearSolve[m, -b];


u = Sum[c[j]*psijk[x, j], {j, 0, n}] /. 

   Table[var[[i]] -> sol1[[i]], {i, Length[var]}];
Show[Plot[x^2*(1 - x), {x, 0, 1}, AxesLabel -> {"x", "u"}, 
  PlotStyle -> Blue, PlotLabel -> Row[{"n = ", n}]], 
 Plot[Re[u], {x, 0, 1}, PlotStyle -> Orange]]
Plot[x^2*(1 - x) - Re[u], {x, 0, 1}, AxesLabel -> {"x", "\[Delta]u"}, 
 PlotStyle -> Blue, PlotLabel -> Row[{"n = ", n}]]

fig3


Comments

Post a Comment

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
Post a Comment
Read more