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

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[ ...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...

plotting - How to draw some 2D curves in a 3D plot?

I want to plot several 2D curves ( Sin[x] at y=0 , Cos[x] at y=1 ) in a 3D plot, what function should i use? f[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 0}, {Sin[x], y == 0}}] g[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 1}, {Cos[x], y == 1}}] Plot3D[{f[x, y], g[x, y]}, {x, 0, 10}, {y, 0, 10}] doesn't work. Any ideas? Answer ParametricPlot3D[{{Sin[u], 0, u}, {Cos[u], 1, u}}, {u, 0, 20}, BoxRatios -> 1, PlotRange -> {{-2, 2}, {-.5, 2}, {0, 20}}] === update - general thoughts === I've seen the comments to this question and a few other approaches to the waterfall (or wire) plot are given in this question: Plotting several functions . Also I cannot not mention one of my favorite Mathematica blogs - Archery with this post on the story of discovery of 1st pulsar and an its infamous graphics - code is given in the post: