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

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more