[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: RE: Re: Partial differential equation with
Ingolf Dahl wrote:
> Hi Jens-Peer,
> Thanks for your interest and your comments
>
> My problematic code was a little damaged by the copy-and-paste. I try again:
>
> Manipulate[s = NDSolve[{emax; dutycycle;
> \!\(
> \*SubscriptBox[\(\[PartialD]\), \(y, y\)]\ \(\[Theta][y, t]\)\) +
> elecy[t]*(5 - \[Theta][y, t])*y*(1 - y) == \[Lambda]*\!\(
> \*SubscriptBox[\(\[PartialD]\), \(t\)]\(\[Theta][y, t]\)\),
> \[Theta][0, t] == -\[Lambda]s*\!\(
> \*SubscriptBox[\(\[PartialD]\), \(t\)]\(\[Theta][0, t]\)\),
> \[Theta][1, t] == -\[Lambda]s*\!\(
> \*SubscriptBox[\(\[PartialD]\), \(t\)]\(\[Theta][1, t]\)\), \[Theta][
> y, 0] == 0}, \[Theta], {y, 0, 1}, {t, 0, 2}];
> Plot3D[\[Theta][y, t] /. s, {y, 0, 1},
> {t, 0, 2}, PlotStyle -> Automatic,
> PlotRange -> {0, 5}],
> {{emax, 25., "emax"}, 0, 100,
> Appearance -> "Labeled"},
> {{dutycycle, 0.25, "dutycycle"}, 0, 1,
> Appearance -> "Labeled"},
> {{\[Lambda], 1., "\[Lambda]"}, 0.001, 10,
> Appearance -> "Labeled"},
> {{\[Lambda]s, 1., "\[Lambda]s"}, 0.001, 10,
> Appearance -> "Labeled"},
> Initialization :> (elecy[t_] :=
> Which[0 <= Mod[t, 1] <= dutycycle, emax,
> dutycycle < Mod[t, 1] <= 1, 0.]),
> ContinuousAction -> False, ControlPlacement -> Top]
>
> Interleaved comments to your answer follow below
>
> Best regards
>
> Ingolf Dahl
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Jens-Peer Kuska [mailto:kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de]
>> Sent: den 24 augusti 2008 13:06
>> To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
>> Subject: [mg91498] Re: Partial differential equation with
>> evolving boundary conditions
>>
>> Hi,
>> [...]
>> c) this is inconsistent with \[Theta][y,0]==0 and no soulution
>> would exist.
>
> and then with integrationconstant0 = integrationconstant1 = 0 there is
> trivial consistence with
> \[Theta][y,0]==0
One can have a pointwise boundary discontinuity or, more generally, a
singularity of dimension less than that of the boundary. Mathematica
might complain, but offhand I don't see an issue with the mathematics.
>> d) the classical way is to think about the existence and uniqueness
>> of the solution *before* a analytical or numeric solution
>> is attempt.
>
> Sometimes I prefer other ways, all roads should lead to Rome. Sometimes it
> is very illuminating to try to find a constructive solution. In this way I
> was able to formulate a question appropriate for MathGroup, where all
> answers use to be nice.
>
> But with \[Theta][0, t]==0 and \[Theta][1, t] == 0 there should exist
> solutions, and thus also in this case(?) I do not think that the rule
> ""Boundary condition ... should have derivatives of order lower than the
> differential order of the partial differential equation" is applicable in
> this case.
>
> End of my comments/ Ingolf
I'm pretty sure this is a real requirement. If you try instead with
lower order boundary conditions such as
\[Theta][0, t] ==
(-\[Lambda]s)*D[\[Theta][0, t], y], \[Theta][1, t] ==
(-\[Lambda]s)*D[\[Theta][1, t], y]
it will work fine (I realize this might not be what you want).
Alternatively I think you could do as Jens-Peer Kuska suggested
(integrate out the dependence on D[...,t]) and then pick values for your
integration constants.
Daniel Lichtblau
Wolfram Research
Prev by Date:
**Catching messages**
Next by Date:
**coloring leaves of a dendrogram**
Previous by thread:
**RE: Re: Partial differential equation with evolving boundary conditions**
Next by thread:
**RE: RE: Re: Partial differential equation with evolving boundary conditions**
| |