Skip to main content

numerics - Numerical error in Mathieu functions



Consider the MathieuCharacteristicA function, which is a piecewise function according to the documentation. The discontinuity happens at integer number.


With[{V0 = -1}, 
 Plot[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, V0], {κ, -2.5, 2.5}]]

enter image description here


Consider the point approaching k=2 from the left side , and plot the Mathieu funtions near that point.


ParallelTable[
 Plot[Evaluate@
   With[{V0 = -1, κ = 2 - ϵ}, 
    Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, V0], V0, 

      z]], {z, -10, 10}, PlotRange -> All, 
  ImageSize -> Medium], {ϵ, {10^-8, 15/10*10^-8, 18/10*10^-8,
    2*10^-8}}]

enter image description here


We see that from points k=2-10^-8 , k=2-1.5*10^-8 to points k=1.8*^-8, k=2*^-8, there are big discontinouity. Why does this big discontinuity happen in the Mathieu function, even we are still away from the piecewise point? Which result is correct?


Moreover, as I increase the working precision, the results changes. Which results should I trust?


ParallelTable[
 Plot[Evaluate@
   With[{V0 = -1, κ = 2 - ϵ}, 

    Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, V0], V0, 
      z]], {z, -10, 10}, PlotRange -> All, ImageSize -> Medium, 
  WorkingPrecision -> 50], {ϵ, {10^-8, 15/10*10^-8, 
   18/10*10^-8, 2*10^-8}}]

enter image description here


Update:


More strange behavior


NLimit[
 Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, -1], -1, 

   0], κ -> 2, Direction -> 1, WorkingPrecision -> 100]
(*
 0.000026560352729499428275267693547091828644960849846890155742135607985075453865741662994877041
*)


N[
 Table[Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[2 - ϵ, -1], -1, 
    0], {ϵ, {10^-6, 10^-8, 10^-10, 10^-20, 10^-40, 10^-60, 
    10^-100}}], 100]

(* \
{9.375519741470728355592491183508603286638427801561870220416306315833951776806837902179623867179198570*10^-6, 
 9.375519742493871990285719573456924995106820123921565403331967009687923231481580841077469030562191305*10^-8, 
 9.375519742493974304649207591451232553957148872416907065490732452953108780592926489536671069329119067*10^-10, 
 9.375519742493974314881667185336397875216528878100913700967589255793432748631135267810942389900367393*10^-20, 
 9.375519654864253585910474819580416042344587293945440367769556457939085038181962308922619162634748808*10^-40,
1.114388591781733115021002428520876171768008184684161143978162399223107768160400228809114697590700165,
1.114388591781733115021002428520876171768008184684161143978162399223107768160400228809114697590700165} *)

What's the correct limit for k->2 ?




Answer



If we compare N on the exact values with the MachinePrecision values, we see that the second two graphs (of the first quartet) look correct and the first two are wrong.


Block[{z = 0},
 Table[With[{V0 = -1, κ = 2 - ϵ}, 
   Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, V0], V0, z]], {ϵ, {15/10*10^-8, 18/10*10^-8}}]
 ]
N[%, 6]
(*
{MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[399999997/200000000, -1], -1, 0], 
 MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[999999991/500000000, -1], -1, 0]}


{1.4063279613740616126811177594156`6.*^-7, 1.6875935536488557009743434482017`6.*^-7} 
*)

Block[{z = 0.},
 Table[With[{V0 = -1, κ = 2 - ϵ}, 
   Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, V0], V0, z]], {ϵ, {15/10*10^-8, 18/10*10^-8}}]
 ]
(*
{1.11439, 1.7027*10^-7}

*)

As the OP showed, this can be seen in the plots, if the WorkingPrecision is set high enough. Clearly, one should trust the second quartet of plots if one is going to trust Mathematica at all. N[expr, n] will report the answer with a precision that is supposed to be correct.



Edit


As @acl has observed Mathieu functions are difficult functions numerically. I would expect it to be even more difficult near a singular point of MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, -1], where a little round-off error causes a discontinuous jump.


The following seem entirely consistent with the left-hand limit being zero, which is at the same time not inconsistent with the OP's evaluation of NLimit.


N@Block[{$MaxExtraPrecision = 500},
  NLimit[Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, -1], -1, 0],
    κ -> 2, Direction -> 1, WorkingPrecision -> 300, Terms -> 50]

  ]

N[Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[2, -1], -1, 0], 10]

N@Block[{$MaxExtraPrecision = 500},
  NLimit[Re@MathieuC[MathieuCharacteristicA[κ, -1], -1, 0],
    κ -> 2, Direction -> -1, WorkingPrecision -> 300, Terms -> 50]
  ]
(*
-1.49047*10^-45

0.8157268391
1.15361
*)

The inconsistencies observed by the OP seem to be due to round-off error. I suppose one complaint is that Mathematica issues no warnings in evaluating the OP's examples, especially the ones involving N applied to an exact value.


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