Obtain the leading order uniform approximation of the solution
$begingroup$
Obtain the leading order uniform approximation of the solution to $ epsilon y′′-x^2y′-y=0$.
The boundary conditions are $y(0)=y(1)=1$.
Since $a(x)<0$ the boundary layer is at $x=1$.
The outer solution will be of the form $y(x; epsilon) = y_0(x) + epsilon y_1(x) + ...$
So the leading order problem is $-x^2y_0' - y_0 =0$ and $y_0(0) = 1$.
Hence $y_0 = ke^{1/x}$.
Here's where the issue arises: to work out $k$ I get $y_0(0)=ke^{1/0}=1$ using the boundary condition at $x=0$, but $e^{1/0}$ is obviously undefined. How can I proceed form here?
asymptotics perturbation-theory boundary-layer
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Obtain the leading order uniform approximation of the solution to $ epsilon y′′-x^2y′-y=0$.
The boundary conditions are $y(0)=y(1)=1$.
Since $a(x)<0$ the boundary layer is at $x=1$.
The outer solution will be of the form $y(x; epsilon) = y_0(x) + epsilon y_1(x) + ...$
So the leading order problem is $-x^2y_0' - y_0 =0$ and $y_0(0) = 1$.
Hence $y_0 = ke^{1/x}$.
Here's where the issue arises: to work out $k$ I get $y_0(0)=ke^{1/0}=1$ using the boundary condition at $x=0$, but $e^{1/0}$ is obviously undefined. How can I proceed form here?
asymptotics perturbation-theory boundary-layer
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
I think there is also a boundary layer of width $sqrt{epsilon}$ at $x=0$, since for $x~simsqrt{epsilon}$ you have $epsilonsim x^2$, so maybe the first term is important near $x=0$. If you can't satisfy the boundary condition this is often a sign that something is not working in your expansion.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 20:16
$begingroup$
Ah I see, that would make sense, thank you! I took the boundary layer to be at x=1 as we were taught that if the coefficient of the y’ term is negative, the boundary layer is at x=1. How can you show that there is also a BL at x=0?
$endgroup$
– maria1991
Dec 3 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
The coefficient is zero at $x=0$ which should make you pause to see if you have a dominant balance near $x=0$.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
This question asks about the same equation: math.stackexchange.com/q/2034260/131807.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 4 '18 at 1:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Obtain the leading order uniform approximation of the solution to $ epsilon y′′-x^2y′-y=0$.
The boundary conditions are $y(0)=y(1)=1$.
Since $a(x)<0$ the boundary layer is at $x=1$.
The outer solution will be of the form $y(x; epsilon) = y_0(x) + epsilon y_1(x) + ...$
So the leading order problem is $-x^2y_0' - y_0 =0$ and $y_0(0) = 1$.
Hence $y_0 = ke^{1/x}$.
Here's where the issue arises: to work out $k$ I get $y_0(0)=ke^{1/0}=1$ using the boundary condition at $x=0$, but $e^{1/0}$ is obviously undefined. How can I proceed form here?
asymptotics perturbation-theory boundary-layer
$endgroup$
Obtain the leading order uniform approximation of the solution to $ epsilon y′′-x^2y′-y=0$.
The boundary conditions are $y(0)=y(1)=1$.
Since $a(x)<0$ the boundary layer is at $x=1$.
The outer solution will be of the form $y(x; epsilon) = y_0(x) + epsilon y_1(x) + ...$
So the leading order problem is $-x^2y_0' - y_0 =0$ and $y_0(0) = 1$.
Hence $y_0 = ke^{1/x}$.
Here's where the issue arises: to work out $k$ I get $y_0(0)=ke^{1/0}=1$ using the boundary condition at $x=0$, but $e^{1/0}$ is obviously undefined. How can I proceed form here?
asymptotics perturbation-theory boundary-layer
asymptotics perturbation-theory boundary-layer
edited Dec 3 '18 at 22:57
maria1991
asked Dec 1 '18 at 17:22
maria1991maria1991
104
104
$begingroup$
I think there is also a boundary layer of width $sqrt{epsilon}$ at $x=0$, since for $x~simsqrt{epsilon}$ you have $epsilonsim x^2$, so maybe the first term is important near $x=0$. If you can't satisfy the boundary condition this is often a sign that something is not working in your expansion.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 20:16
$begingroup$
Ah I see, that would make sense, thank you! I took the boundary layer to be at x=1 as we were taught that if the coefficient of the y’ term is negative, the boundary layer is at x=1. How can you show that there is also a BL at x=0?
$endgroup$
– maria1991
Dec 3 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
The coefficient is zero at $x=0$ which should make you pause to see if you have a dominant balance near $x=0$.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
This question asks about the same equation: math.stackexchange.com/q/2034260/131807.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 4 '18 at 1:43
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I think there is also a boundary layer of width $sqrt{epsilon}$ at $x=0$, since for $x~simsqrt{epsilon}$ you have $epsilonsim x^2$, so maybe the first term is important near $x=0$. If you can't satisfy the boundary condition this is often a sign that something is not working in your expansion.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 20:16
$begingroup$
Ah I see, that would make sense, thank you! I took the boundary layer to be at x=1 as we were taught that if the coefficient of the y’ term is negative, the boundary layer is at x=1. How can you show that there is also a BL at x=0?
$endgroup$
– maria1991
Dec 3 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
The coefficient is zero at $x=0$ which should make you pause to see if you have a dominant balance near $x=0$.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
This question asks about the same equation: math.stackexchange.com/q/2034260/131807.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 4 '18 at 1:43
$begingroup$
I think there is also a boundary layer of width $sqrt{epsilon}$ at $x=0$, since for $x~simsqrt{epsilon}$ you have $epsilonsim x^2$, so maybe the first term is important near $x=0$. If you can't satisfy the boundary condition this is often a sign that something is not working in your expansion.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 20:16
$begingroup$
I think there is also a boundary layer of width $sqrt{epsilon}$ at $x=0$, since for $x~simsqrt{epsilon}$ you have $epsilonsim x^2$, so maybe the first term is important near $x=0$. If you can't satisfy the boundary condition this is often a sign that something is not working in your expansion.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 20:16
$begingroup$
Ah I see, that would make sense, thank you! I took the boundary layer to be at x=1 as we were taught that if the coefficient of the y’ term is negative, the boundary layer is at x=1. How can you show that there is also a BL at x=0?
$endgroup$
– maria1991
Dec 3 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
Ah I see, that would make sense, thank you! I took the boundary layer to be at x=1 as we were taught that if the coefficient of the y’ term is negative, the boundary layer is at x=1. How can you show that there is also a BL at x=0?
$endgroup$
– maria1991
Dec 3 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
The coefficient is zero at $x=0$ which should make you pause to see if you have a dominant balance near $x=0$.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
The coefficient is zero at $x=0$ which should make you pause to see if you have a dominant balance near $x=0$.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
This question asks about the same equation: math.stackexchange.com/q/2034260/131807.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 4 '18 at 1:43
$begingroup$
This question asks about the same equation: math.stackexchange.com/q/2034260/131807.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 4 '18 at 1:43
add a comment |
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is a complicated problem, but if you're careful it does work out. Firstly, let's write out the equation assuming there is a boundary layer or width $epsilon^alpha$ at $x_0$, so let $X=(x-x_0)/epsilon^alpha$ and $Y(X)=y(x)$. We get
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{-alpha}(epsilon^alpha X+x_0)^2Y_X-Y=0,$$
expanding
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{alpha}X^2Y_X-2Xx_0Y_X-epsilon^{-alpha}x_0^2Y_X-Y=0.$$
Now for dominant balance. If $x_0neq0$, then we would balance $epsilon^{1-2alpha}$ with $epsilon^{-alpha}$ (you can check that this is the only dominant balance) to give $alpha=1$. You can leave $x_0$ unknown and determine that it must be 1, but since you already know that we'll use the fact and write our leading-order inner equation at $x=1$ as
$$Y_{XX}-Y_X=0,$$
with boundary condition $Y(0)=1$ (since $x=1$ corresponds to $X=0$). The solution is $Y(X)=A+Be^X$ where $A+B=1$.
If $x_0=0$ then we have a different balance, with $alpha=1/2$. Let $mathsf Y(chi)=y(x)$ with $chi=x/sqrt{epsilon}$ and the leading-order inner equation at $x=0$ is
$$mathsf Y_{chichi}-mathsf Y=0,$$
with $mathsf Y(0)=1$. The solution is $mathsf Y=Ce^chi+De^{-chi}$, and since our solution must be bounded as we exit the boundary layer, we need $A=0$, and the boundary condition gives $D=1$.
The leading order outer solution is, as you found, $y=ke^{1/x}$. You can say here that $k=0$ since the solution must be bounded as you enter each boundary layer, or do it through asymptotic matching.
To fix the remaining constants $k$ and $A$ (or $B$), we need to match all the parts of the solution. To do this, we need the outer solution to be bounded, so we need $k=0$. Alternatively, consider matching the outer solution to the inner solution at $x=0$,
$$lim_{chirightarrowinfty}e^{-chi}=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow0=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow k=0.$$ Then the match between the outer layer and the inner layer at $x=1$ gives
$$lim{xrightarrow1}0=lim{Xrightarrow-infty}A+Be^XRightarrow A=0$$
and hence $B=1$.
So the inner solution at $x=0$ is $mathsf Y(chi)=e^{-chi}$, the outer solution is $y(x)=0$ and the inner solution at $x=1$ is $Y(X)=e^X$. We can find a uniformly valid approximation by adding the three equations (writing them all in terms of $x$) and subtracting off the matching constants (all zero) as,
$$y_{unif}(x)=e^{x/sqrt{epsilon}}+e^{(x-1)/epsilon}.$$
This will not be particularly accurate, it's an $O(sqrt{epsilon})$ approximation, but I did verify that numerically. I've made a plot of the solution for $epsilon=0.01$ first and $epsilon=0.02$ second.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
});
});
}, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021588%2fobtain-the-leading-order-uniform-approximation-of-the-solution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
1 Answer
1
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
This is a complicated problem, but if you're careful it does work out. Firstly, let's write out the equation assuming there is a boundary layer or width $epsilon^alpha$ at $x_0$, so let $X=(x-x_0)/epsilon^alpha$ and $Y(X)=y(x)$. We get
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{-alpha}(epsilon^alpha X+x_0)^2Y_X-Y=0,$$
expanding
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{alpha}X^2Y_X-2Xx_0Y_X-epsilon^{-alpha}x_0^2Y_X-Y=0.$$
Now for dominant balance. If $x_0neq0$, then we would balance $epsilon^{1-2alpha}$ with $epsilon^{-alpha}$ (you can check that this is the only dominant balance) to give $alpha=1$. You can leave $x_0$ unknown and determine that it must be 1, but since you already know that we'll use the fact and write our leading-order inner equation at $x=1$ as
$$Y_{XX}-Y_X=0,$$
with boundary condition $Y(0)=1$ (since $x=1$ corresponds to $X=0$). The solution is $Y(X)=A+Be^X$ where $A+B=1$.
If $x_0=0$ then we have a different balance, with $alpha=1/2$. Let $mathsf Y(chi)=y(x)$ with $chi=x/sqrt{epsilon}$ and the leading-order inner equation at $x=0$ is
$$mathsf Y_{chichi}-mathsf Y=0,$$
with $mathsf Y(0)=1$. The solution is $mathsf Y=Ce^chi+De^{-chi}$, and since our solution must be bounded as we exit the boundary layer, we need $A=0$, and the boundary condition gives $D=1$.
The leading order outer solution is, as you found, $y=ke^{1/x}$. You can say here that $k=0$ since the solution must be bounded as you enter each boundary layer, or do it through asymptotic matching.
To fix the remaining constants $k$ and $A$ (or $B$), we need to match all the parts of the solution. To do this, we need the outer solution to be bounded, so we need $k=0$. Alternatively, consider matching the outer solution to the inner solution at $x=0$,
$$lim_{chirightarrowinfty}e^{-chi}=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow0=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow k=0.$$ Then the match between the outer layer and the inner layer at $x=1$ gives
$$lim{xrightarrow1}0=lim{Xrightarrow-infty}A+Be^XRightarrow A=0$$
and hence $B=1$.
So the inner solution at $x=0$ is $mathsf Y(chi)=e^{-chi}$, the outer solution is $y(x)=0$ and the inner solution at $x=1$ is $Y(X)=e^X$. We can find a uniformly valid approximation by adding the three equations (writing them all in terms of $x$) and subtracting off the matching constants (all zero) as,
$$y_{unif}(x)=e^{x/sqrt{epsilon}}+e^{(x-1)/epsilon}.$$
This will not be particularly accurate, it's an $O(sqrt{epsilon})$ approximation, but I did verify that numerically. I've made a plot of the solution for $epsilon=0.01$ first and $epsilon=0.02$ second.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is a complicated problem, but if you're careful it does work out. Firstly, let's write out the equation assuming there is a boundary layer or width $epsilon^alpha$ at $x_0$, so let $X=(x-x_0)/epsilon^alpha$ and $Y(X)=y(x)$. We get
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{-alpha}(epsilon^alpha X+x_0)^2Y_X-Y=0,$$
expanding
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{alpha}X^2Y_X-2Xx_0Y_X-epsilon^{-alpha}x_0^2Y_X-Y=0.$$
Now for dominant balance. If $x_0neq0$, then we would balance $epsilon^{1-2alpha}$ with $epsilon^{-alpha}$ (you can check that this is the only dominant balance) to give $alpha=1$. You can leave $x_0$ unknown and determine that it must be 1, but since you already know that we'll use the fact and write our leading-order inner equation at $x=1$ as
$$Y_{XX}-Y_X=0,$$
with boundary condition $Y(0)=1$ (since $x=1$ corresponds to $X=0$). The solution is $Y(X)=A+Be^X$ where $A+B=1$.
If $x_0=0$ then we have a different balance, with $alpha=1/2$. Let $mathsf Y(chi)=y(x)$ with $chi=x/sqrt{epsilon}$ and the leading-order inner equation at $x=0$ is
$$mathsf Y_{chichi}-mathsf Y=0,$$
with $mathsf Y(0)=1$. The solution is $mathsf Y=Ce^chi+De^{-chi}$, and since our solution must be bounded as we exit the boundary layer, we need $A=0$, and the boundary condition gives $D=1$.
The leading order outer solution is, as you found, $y=ke^{1/x}$. You can say here that $k=0$ since the solution must be bounded as you enter each boundary layer, or do it through asymptotic matching.
To fix the remaining constants $k$ and $A$ (or $B$), we need to match all the parts of the solution. To do this, we need the outer solution to be bounded, so we need $k=0$. Alternatively, consider matching the outer solution to the inner solution at $x=0$,
$$lim_{chirightarrowinfty}e^{-chi}=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow0=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow k=0.$$ Then the match between the outer layer and the inner layer at $x=1$ gives
$$lim{xrightarrow1}0=lim{Xrightarrow-infty}A+Be^XRightarrow A=0$$
and hence $B=1$.
So the inner solution at $x=0$ is $mathsf Y(chi)=e^{-chi}$, the outer solution is $y(x)=0$ and the inner solution at $x=1$ is $Y(X)=e^X$. We can find a uniformly valid approximation by adding the three equations (writing them all in terms of $x$) and subtracting off the matching constants (all zero) as,
$$y_{unif}(x)=e^{x/sqrt{epsilon}}+e^{(x-1)/epsilon}.$$
This will not be particularly accurate, it's an $O(sqrt{epsilon})$ approximation, but I did verify that numerically. I've made a plot of the solution for $epsilon=0.01$ first and $epsilon=0.02$ second.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
This is a complicated problem, but if you're careful it does work out. Firstly, let's write out the equation assuming there is a boundary layer or width $epsilon^alpha$ at $x_0$, so let $X=(x-x_0)/epsilon^alpha$ and $Y(X)=y(x)$. We get
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{-alpha}(epsilon^alpha X+x_0)^2Y_X-Y=0,$$
expanding
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{alpha}X^2Y_X-2Xx_0Y_X-epsilon^{-alpha}x_0^2Y_X-Y=0.$$
Now for dominant balance. If $x_0neq0$, then we would balance $epsilon^{1-2alpha}$ with $epsilon^{-alpha}$ (you can check that this is the only dominant balance) to give $alpha=1$. You can leave $x_0$ unknown and determine that it must be 1, but since you already know that we'll use the fact and write our leading-order inner equation at $x=1$ as
$$Y_{XX}-Y_X=0,$$
with boundary condition $Y(0)=1$ (since $x=1$ corresponds to $X=0$). The solution is $Y(X)=A+Be^X$ where $A+B=1$.
If $x_0=0$ then we have a different balance, with $alpha=1/2$. Let $mathsf Y(chi)=y(x)$ with $chi=x/sqrt{epsilon}$ and the leading-order inner equation at $x=0$ is
$$mathsf Y_{chichi}-mathsf Y=0,$$
with $mathsf Y(0)=1$. The solution is $mathsf Y=Ce^chi+De^{-chi}$, and since our solution must be bounded as we exit the boundary layer, we need $A=0$, and the boundary condition gives $D=1$.
The leading order outer solution is, as you found, $y=ke^{1/x}$. You can say here that $k=0$ since the solution must be bounded as you enter each boundary layer, or do it through asymptotic matching.
To fix the remaining constants $k$ and $A$ (or $B$), we need to match all the parts of the solution. To do this, we need the outer solution to be bounded, so we need $k=0$. Alternatively, consider matching the outer solution to the inner solution at $x=0$,
$$lim_{chirightarrowinfty}e^{-chi}=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow0=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow k=0.$$ Then the match between the outer layer and the inner layer at $x=1$ gives
$$lim{xrightarrow1}0=lim{Xrightarrow-infty}A+Be^XRightarrow A=0$$
and hence $B=1$.
So the inner solution at $x=0$ is $mathsf Y(chi)=e^{-chi}$, the outer solution is $y(x)=0$ and the inner solution at $x=1$ is $Y(X)=e^X$. We can find a uniformly valid approximation by adding the three equations (writing them all in terms of $x$) and subtracting off the matching constants (all zero) as,
$$y_{unif}(x)=e^{x/sqrt{epsilon}}+e^{(x-1)/epsilon}.$$
This will not be particularly accurate, it's an $O(sqrt{epsilon})$ approximation, but I did verify that numerically. I've made a plot of the solution for $epsilon=0.01$ first and $epsilon=0.02$ second.
$endgroup$
This is a complicated problem, but if you're careful it does work out. Firstly, let's write out the equation assuming there is a boundary layer or width $epsilon^alpha$ at $x_0$, so let $X=(x-x_0)/epsilon^alpha$ and $Y(X)=y(x)$. We get
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{-alpha}(epsilon^alpha X+x_0)^2Y_X-Y=0,$$
expanding
$$ epsilon^{1-2alpha}Y_{XX}-epsilon^{alpha}X^2Y_X-2Xx_0Y_X-epsilon^{-alpha}x_0^2Y_X-Y=0.$$
Now for dominant balance. If $x_0neq0$, then we would balance $epsilon^{1-2alpha}$ with $epsilon^{-alpha}$ (you can check that this is the only dominant balance) to give $alpha=1$. You can leave $x_0$ unknown and determine that it must be 1, but since you already know that we'll use the fact and write our leading-order inner equation at $x=1$ as
$$Y_{XX}-Y_X=0,$$
with boundary condition $Y(0)=1$ (since $x=1$ corresponds to $X=0$). The solution is $Y(X)=A+Be^X$ where $A+B=1$.
If $x_0=0$ then we have a different balance, with $alpha=1/2$. Let $mathsf Y(chi)=y(x)$ with $chi=x/sqrt{epsilon}$ and the leading-order inner equation at $x=0$ is
$$mathsf Y_{chichi}-mathsf Y=0,$$
with $mathsf Y(0)=1$. The solution is $mathsf Y=Ce^chi+De^{-chi}$, and since our solution must be bounded as we exit the boundary layer, we need $A=0$, and the boundary condition gives $D=1$.
The leading order outer solution is, as you found, $y=ke^{1/x}$. You can say here that $k=0$ since the solution must be bounded as you enter each boundary layer, or do it through asymptotic matching.
To fix the remaining constants $k$ and $A$ (or $B$), we need to match all the parts of the solution. To do this, we need the outer solution to be bounded, so we need $k=0$. Alternatively, consider matching the outer solution to the inner solution at $x=0$,
$$lim_{chirightarrowinfty}e^{-chi}=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow0=lim_{xrightarrow0}ke^{1/x}Rightarrow k=0.$$ Then the match between the outer layer and the inner layer at $x=1$ gives
$$lim{xrightarrow1}0=lim{Xrightarrow-infty}A+Be^XRightarrow A=0$$
and hence $B=1$.
So the inner solution at $x=0$ is $mathsf Y(chi)=e^{-chi}$, the outer solution is $y(x)=0$ and the inner solution at $x=1$ is $Y(X)=e^X$. We can find a uniformly valid approximation by adding the three equations (writing them all in terms of $x$) and subtracting off the matching constants (all zero) as,
$$y_{unif}(x)=e^{x/sqrt{epsilon}}+e^{(x-1)/epsilon}.$$
This will not be particularly accurate, it's an $O(sqrt{epsilon})$ approximation, but I did verify that numerically. I've made a plot of the solution for $epsilon=0.01$ first and $epsilon=0.02$ second.
answered Dec 4 '18 at 2:57
DavidDavid
1,496519
1,496519
add a comment |
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3021588%2fobtain-the-leading-order-uniform-approximation-of-the-solution%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
I think there is also a boundary layer of width $sqrt{epsilon}$ at $x=0$, since for $x~simsqrt{epsilon}$ you have $epsilonsim x^2$, so maybe the first term is important near $x=0$. If you can't satisfy the boundary condition this is often a sign that something is not working in your expansion.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 20:16
$begingroup$
Ah I see, that would make sense, thank you! I took the boundary layer to be at x=1 as we were taught that if the coefficient of the y’ term is negative, the boundary layer is at x=1. How can you show that there is also a BL at x=0?
$endgroup$
– maria1991
Dec 3 '18 at 20:56
$begingroup$
The coefficient is zero at $x=0$ which should make you pause to see if you have a dominant balance near $x=0$.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 3 '18 at 21:22
$begingroup$
This question asks about the same equation: math.stackexchange.com/q/2034260/131807.
$endgroup$
– David
Dec 4 '18 at 1:43