[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Numerical integration
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg79675] Re: [mg79621] Numerical integration
*From*: Bob Hanlon <hanlonr at cox.net>
*Date*: Wed, 1 Aug 2007 05:12:22 -0400 (EDT)
*Reply-to*: hanlonr at cox.net
Version 6 appears to have a problem with this integral.
$Version
6.0 for Mac OS X x86 (32-bit) (June 19, 2007)
expr1 = Integrate[Log[1 + z^2]*(BesselJ[1, z]^2/z), {z, 0, Infinity}]
(1/2)*HypergeometricPFQ[{1/2},
{1, 2}, 1]*(1 - 2*EulerGamma +
Log[4])
expr2 = expr1 // FunctionExpand // Simplify
(-(1/2))*(BesselI[0, 1]^2 -
BesselI[1, 1]^2)*
(-1 + 2*EulerGamma - Log[4])
expr1 // N
0.790559
expr2 // N
0.790559
NIntegrate[Log[1 + z^2]*(BesselJ[1, z]^2/z), {z, 0, Infinity}]
0.869058
Bob Hanlon
---- dimitris <dimmechan at yahoo.com> wrote:
> In[3]:=
> Integrate[Log[1 + z^2]*(BesselJ[1, z]^2/z), {z, 0, Infinity}]
> N[%, 10]
>
> Out[3]=
> MeijerG[{{1/2}, {}}, {{0, 0}, {-1}}, 1]/(2*Sqrt[Pi])
>
> Out[4]=
> 0.8732180258611361020606751916`10.
>
> On another CAS I took,
>
> convert("Integrate[Log[1 + z^2]*(BesselJ[1, z]^2/z), {z, 0,
> Infinity}]",FromMma,evaluate);
> evalf(%,20);
>
> 1/2
> 1/2 (2 Pi BesselI(0, 1) BesselK(0, 1)
>
> 1/2 / 1/2
> + 2 Pi BesselK(1, 1) BesselI(1, 1)) / Pi
> /
>
> 0.87321802586113613925
>
> Both CAS return the same symbolic result.
> [An interesting challenge is to simplify the MeijerG
> output of Mathematica to that of the other CAS]
>
> I want to check this symbolic result with NIntegrate.
> I have "played around" with the options but I could get
> "more closely" than
>
> In[16]:=
> NIntegrate[Log[1+z^2]*(BesselJ[1,z]^2/z),{z,
> 0, },MaxRecursion\[Rule]18]//InputForm
>
> >From In[16]:=
> \!\(\*
> RowBox[{\(NIntegrate::"slwcon
> "\), \(\(:\)\(\ \)\), "\<\"Numerical integration
> converging too slowly; suspect
> one of the following: singularity, value of the integration being
> 0, \
> oscillatory integrand, or insufficient WorkingPrecision. If your
> integrand is \
> oscillatory try using the option Method->Oscillatory in NIntegrate. \
> \\!\\(\\*ButtonBox[\\\"More...\\\", ButtonStyle->\\\"RefGuideLinkText\\
> \", \
> ButtonFrame->None, ButtonData:>\\\"NIntegrate::slwcon\\\"]\\)\"\>"}]\)
>
> >From In[16]:=
> \!\(\*
> RowBox[{\(NIntegrate::"ncvb"\), \(\(:\)\(\ \)\), "\<\"NIntegrate
> failed
> to converge to prescribed accuracy
> after \\!\\(19\\) recursive bisections in \\!\\(z\\) near \\!\\(z\
> \) = \
> \\!\\(35857.55603944016`\\). \\!\\(\\*ButtonBox[\\\"More...\\\", \
> ButtonStyle->\\\"RefGuideLinkText\\\", ButtonFrame->None, \
> ButtonData:>\\\"NIntegrate::ncvb\\\"]\\)\"\>"}]\)
>
> Out[16]//InputForm=
> 0.8732193803103058
>
> I would be very happy if someone pointed a tactic for perfroming
> satisfactory numerical integration with mathematica for this integral.
> I use mathematica 5.2 but you can use Mathematica 6 as well!
>
> The integral arose in another forum. There it was pointed out that
> the performance of Mathematica 6 is buggy as regards numerical
> integration.
>
> I look forward to seeing any replies.
>
> Greetings from burning Greece!
>
> Dimitris
>
> PS
>
> See here
>
> http://groups.google.gr/group/sci.math.symbolic/browse_thread/thread/57af36ff6f540a0d/a076ffbc412f974a?hl=el#a076ffbc412f974a
>
> for above mentioned thread.
>
>
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Re: Where is the Navigate menu**
Next by Date:
**Re: Unbearably slow plotting (v6)**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Numerical integration**
Next by thread:
**Re: Numerical integration**
| |