Let x′(t)=f(t,x(t)),t in (0,T) with x(0)=x_0 f satifies the Lipschitz-condition f(t,x)−f(t,y)<=L|x−y| h in (0,1/L) is the step size and the approximation x_k for x(t_k)=hk is given by x_k=x_(k−1)+hf(t_k,x_k). Now I would be very interested how to derive the error |x_k−x(t_k)|<=(1)/(1−Lh)(|x_(k−1)−x(t_(k−1))|+(h^2)/(2)max_(s in [0,T])|x′′(s)|) I tried to look up it up in some numerical analysis books but it is always different

Julia Chang 2022-09-16 Answered
Let
x ( t ) = f ( t , x ( t ) ) , t ( 0 , T ) with x ( 0 ) = x 0
f satifies the Lipschitz-condition f ( t , x ) f ( t , y ) L | x y |
h ( 0 , 1 L ) is the step size and the approximation x k for x ( t k ) = h k is given by x k = x k 1 + h f ( t k , x k ).
Now I would be very interested how to derive the error
| x k x ( t k ) | 1 1 L h ( | x k 1 x ( t k 1 ) | + h 2 2 max s [ 0 , T ] | x ( s ) | )
I tried to look up it up in some numerical analysis books but it is always different
You can still ask an expert for help

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

Solve your problem for the price of one coffee

  • Available 24/7
  • Math expert for every subject
  • Pay only if we can solve it
Ask Question

Answers (1)

Edgeriecoereexq
Answered 2022-09-17 Author has 3 answers
First, we get local truncation error.
x ( t k + 1 ) = x ( t k ) + h f ( t k , x ( t k ) ) + τ k
τ k = x ( t k + 1 ) x ( t k ) h f ( t k , x ( t k ) ) = h 2 2 x ( η ). Where η ( t k , t k + 1 ).
Then we get the bound,
| x ( t k + 1 ) x k + 1 | ( 1 + h L ) | x ( t k ) x k | + | τ k |
( 1 + h L ) | x ( t k ) x k | + h 2 2 max s ( 0 , T ) | x ( s ) |
1 1 h L | x ( t k ) x k | + h 2 2 max s ( 0 , T ) | x ( s ) |
Where the last step is from geometric series. Maybe it would be helpful if you listed the other results you are talking about, and then we can show that they're equivalent.
Not exactly what you’re looking for?
Ask My Question

Expert Community at Your Service

  • Live experts 24/7
  • Questions are typically answered in as fast as 30 minutes
  • Personalized clear answers
Learn more

You might be interested in

asked 2022-04-07
For: F ( 0 ) = 0 and F ( x ) = f ( x )
Euler's method: F ( 0 + h ) = F ( 0 ) + h F ( 0 ) = 0 + h f ( 0 )
Continuing the process, F ( 10 h ) = h f ( 0 ) + h f ( h ) + h f ( 2 h ) + . . . . . h f ( 9 h )
This resembles the Riemann sum: Σ i = 1 n f ( x i ) ( x i x i 1 )
Therefore my professor used Euler's method to solve integral problems.

Example: 3 3.09 f ( x ) d x = 0.81. Approximate f ( 3 ) . F ( x ) = h f ( x )
0.81 = 0.09 f ( x )
f ( x ) = 3
My question: How did F ( x + h ) = F ( x ) + h f ( x ) become F ( x ) = h f ( x ) ?
asked 2022-08-12
While studying Fourier analysis last semester, I saw an interesting identity:
n = 1 1 n 2 α 2 = 1 2 α 2 π 2 α tan π α
whenever α C Z , which I learned two proofs using Fourier series and residue calculus.
More explicitly, we can deduce the theorem using Fourier series of f ( θ ) = e i ( π θ ) α on [ 0 , 2 π ] or contour integral of the function g ( z ) = π ( z 2 α 2 ) tan π z along large circles.
But these techniques, as long as I know, wasn't fully developed at Euler's time.
So what was Euler's method to prove this identity? Is there any proof at elementary level?
asked 2022-08-22
Solve the first-order system that satisfies the given initial conditions using the Euler Method for y ( 0.5 ) and z ( 0.5 ), using a mesh size of h = 0.1:
1. y 6 z 2 z y x 3 y = 0 ; y ( 0 ) = 1 ,   y ( 0 ) = 1.5
2. z + 3 y 2 ( z ) 2 5 z x 2 z = 0 ; z ( 0 ) = 1.25 ,   z ( 0 ) = 1.5 ,   z ( 0 ) = 2
Please help. I just can’t figure this problem out. We’re supposed to use u = y, v = y , w = z, g = z , k = z when defining first-order system of ODE’s.
asked 2022-07-21
Using the Euler's method (with h = 10 n ) to find y ( 1 )
y = sin ( x ) x
Since
y ( x ) = sin ( x ) x
then
f ( x , y ) = sin ( x ) x
I know
y n + 1 = y n + h f ( x n , y n )
and given y ( 0 ) = 0, so
x 0 = y 0 = 0
Therefore,
x 1 = x 0 + h = 0 + 10 0 = 1 y 1 = y ( x 1 ) = y ( 1 )
Then,
y 1 = 0 + 10 0 f ( x 0 , y 0 )
y 1 = f ( 0 , 0 )
But
f ( 0 , 0 ) = sin ( 0 ) 0 = 0 0
How am I supposed to do it?
asked 2022-09-19
I am trying to show that, for the equation
y + α y = 0
alternating between a forward Euler method step for y 2 n and a backward Euler step for y 2 n + 1 with time-step h is equivalent to
y n + 1 = 1 α h 1 + α h y n
I have that
y 1 = y 0 + h ( α y 0 ) = ( 1 α h ) y 0
How exactly ( 1 + α h ) works into this I don't see. If I just press forward anyway, using the trapezoid rule for the backward Euler step next, and call y ^ n the approximation of y n using the forward Euler method, I get
y 2 = y 1 + h ( y 1 + y ^ 2 2 )
I'm kind of doing this a priori but that seems right to me: the trapezoid rule is to multiply the change in the x-axis by the average of the bases which are y 1 and y 2 . This becomes
y 2 = y 1 + h ( y 1 + ( 1 α h ) y 1 2 ) = ( 1 + h ( 2 α h 2 ) ) y 1
This doesn't seem to be shaping up to the form I'm supposed to be getting. Am I doing something wrong?
asked 2022-07-16
I need to solve the equation below with Euler's method:
y + π y e x / 3 ( 2 y sin ( π x ) + π y cos ( π x ) ) = y 9
for the initial conditions y ( 0 ) = 1, y ( 0 ) = 1 / 3
So I know I need to turn the problem into a system of two first order differential equations.
Therefore u 1 = y and u 2 = y I can now write the system as:
u 1 = y u 2 = y 9 π y e x / 3 ( 2 u 1 sin ( π x ) π y cos ( π x ) )
How do I proceed from here?
asked 2022-07-18
How do you prove Euler's Theorem
d u = ( u x ) d x + ( u y ) d y
if u = f ( x , y ).
I also heard that Ramanujan developed another method can somebody know that?