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[ ...

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...