The solution to Laplace PDE on rectangle is usually written using hyperbolic trig functions. I solve this PDE using Maple. Verified Maple solution is correct. But having hard time figuring how to make its result match the book result.
I tried sol:=convert(rhs(sol),trigh): then simplify(sol,trig); and it become little closer to the book solution, but is still can be more simplified.
Are there any tricks to do this?
Here is MWE
restart;
interface(showassumed=0):
pde:=diff(u(x,y),x$2)+diff(u(x,y),y$2)=0:
bc:=u(0,y)=0,u(a,y)=f(y),u(x,0)=0,u(x,b)=0:
sol:=pdsolve([pde,bc],u(x,y)) assuming(0<=x and x<=a and 0<=y and y<=b):
sol:=subs(infinity=20,sol);
Which gives
The above is same as the following, which I am trying to convert the above to
textbookU:= Sum(2*sin(n*Pi*y/b)*(Int(sin(n*Pi*y/b)*f(y),
y = 0 .. b))*sinh(n*Pi*x/b)/(b*sinh(n*Pi*a/b)), n = 1 .. 20);
The above are the same. I checked few points, and they give same answer. They must be the same, as the above textbook solution is correct, and I am assuming Maple solution is correct.
Now I tried to convert Maple sol to the above as follows
sol:=convert(rhs(sol),trigh):
simplify(sol,trig);
May be someone knows a better way to obtain the textbook solution form, starting from the Maple solution above.
Using Maple 2017.3 on windows
After the convert you can first expand it, to then simplify it again:
s := convert(sol, trigh):
s := expand(s):
simplify(s);
which gives:
Maple generates a strange solution form for this PDE. I am having hard time plotting the solution.
The solution is in terms of infinite series. I set the number of terms to say 20, and then set the time to plot the solution at t=2 seconds. Then want to plot the solution now for x=0..1. But the plot comes out empty.
When I sample the solution, and use listplot, I get correct solution plot.
Here is MWE
restart;
pde:=diff(u(x,t),t)=diff(u(x,t),x$2)+x;
bc:=u(0,t)=0,u(1,t)=0;
ic:=u(x,0)=x*(1-x);
sol:=pdsolve({pde,ic,bc},u(x,t)):
sol:=value(sol);
Now set the number of terms to 20 and set t=2
sol2:=subs(t=2,sol):
sol2:=subs(infinity=20,sol2);
The above is what I want to plot.
plot(rhs(sol2),x=0..1);
I get empty plot
So had to manually sample it and use listplot
f:=x->rhs(sol2);
data:=[seq([x,f(x)],x=0..1,.01)]:
plots:-listplot(data);
Solution looks correct, when I compare it to Mathematica's result. But Mathematica result is simpler as it does not have those integrals in the sum.
pde=D[u[x,t],t]==D[u[x,t],{x,2}]+x;
bc={u[0,t]==0,u[1,t]==0};
ic=u[x,0]==x(1-x);
DSolve[{pde,ic,bc},u[x,t],x,t];
%/.K[1]->n;
%/.Infinity->20;
%/.t->2;
And the plot is
Question is: How to plot Maple solution without manually sampling it?
Short answer seems to be that it is a regression in Maple 2017.3.
For me, your code works directly in Maple 2017.2 and Maple 2016.2 (without any unevaluated integrals). I will submit a bug report against the regression.
[edited] Let me know if any of these four ways work for your version (presumably Maple 2017.3).
restart;
pde:=diff(u(x,t),t)=diff(u(x,t),x$2)+x;
bc:=u(0,t)=0,u(1,t)=0;
ic:=u(x,0)=x*(1-x);
sol:=pdsolve({pde,ic,bc},u(x,t)):
sol:=value(sol);
sol5:=value(combine(subs([sum=Sum,t=2,infinity=20],sol))):
plot(rhs(sol5),x=0..1);
sol4:=combine(subs([sum=Sum,t=2,infinity=20],sol)):
(UseHardwareFloats,oldUHF):=false,UseHardwareFloats:
plot(rhs(sol4),x=0..1);
UseHardwareFloats:=oldUHF: # re-instate
sol2:=subs([sum=Sum,int=Int,t=2],sol):
# Switch integration and summation in second summand of rhs(sol).
sol3:=subsop(2=Sum(int(op([2,1,1],rhs(sol2)),op([2,2],rhs(sol2))),
op([2,1,2],rhs(sol2))),rhs(sol2)):
# Rename dummy index and combine summations.
sol3:=Sum(subs(n1=n,op([1,1],sol3))+op([2,1],sol3),
subs(n1=n,op([1,2],sol3))):
# Curtail to first 20 terms.
sol3:=lhs(sol2)=subs(infinity=20,simplify(sol3));
plot(rhs(sol3),x=0..1);
F:=unapply(subs([Sum='add'],rhs(sol3)),x):
plot(F,0..1);
[edited] Here is yet another way, working for me in Maple 2017.3 on 64bit Linux.
It produces the plot quickly, and doesn't involve curtailing any sum at 20 terms. Note that it does not do your earlier step of sol:=value(sol); since it does active int rather than Int before hitting any Sum with value. It also uses an assumption on x corresponding to the plotting range.
restart;
pde:=diff(u(x,t),t)=diff(u(x,t),x$2)+x:
bc:=u(0,t)=0,u(1,t)=0:
ic:=u(x,0)=x*(1-x):
sol:=pdsolve({pde,ic,bc},u(x,t)):
solA:=subs(sum=Sum,value(eval(eval(sol,t=2),Int=int))) assuming x>0, x<1;
plot(rhs(solA),x=0..1) assuming x>0, x<1;
I have written a code in Matlab R2017a, where to detect peaks, I used MinPeakProminence. Now I need to shift the code to Matlab 2014, where MinPeakProminence doesn't exist, while theres in another option called 'Threshold'. But for some reason, it doesn't give out the same results as MinPeakProminence.
How are they both different? What should I be doing to get the same result of MinPeakProminence in Matlab 2014?
I am using MATLAB's PCG subroutine to solve a system of linear equations. However, I don't want it to solve exactly. I want it to run for only 20 iterations and if it doesn't converge, I want it to return the value at the 20th iteration.
What MATLAB (My version is the latest one) is doing however is returning a zero vector if it doesn't find an acceptable solution by 20 iterations. Is there any way to override this without changing the source code of pcg.m?
I have a code which I wrote which does that (I just copied from Wikipedia) but obviously, it is not close to how robust MATLAB's version is.
function [x] = conjgrad(A,b,x)
r=b-A*x;
p=r;
rsold=r'*r;
for i=1:20
Ap=A*p;
alpha=rsold/(p'*Ap);
x=x+alpha*p;
r=r-alpha*Ap;
rsnew=r'*r;
if sqrt(rsnew)<1e-10
break;
end
p=r+rsnew/rsold*p;
rsold=rsnew;
end
I've been working with matrices over GF(2) in Matlab. Well, I've been working with 0/1 matrices that I've been treating as being defined over GF(2). I was surprised/happy to see that Matlab provides some functionality in the Communications System Toolbox for working over finite fields. In particular, if I want to find the rank of a matrix over a finite field, there are a couple of methods: (1) use gfrank on the matrices that I already have defined, or (2) use rank on a Galois field array (created with gf). For matrices over GF(2), the former method seems to be significantly faster; however, there's a problem...
The documentation for gfrank says that the function doesn't work over fields of the form GF(2^m). I double checked on a toy example, and specifying GF(2) as the field to work over seems to output correct results. Moreover, the function's m-file specifies GF(2) as the default field (by specifying the second argument as 2 if nargin < 2). Something has to be wrong here, and it seems to be the documentation. However, I'd hate to assume that the documentation is wrong only to find out much later that the computation doesn't always work over GF(2^m). Does anybody know for sure what's wrong here? Thanks for your help.