Timeline for Solution of a BVP by shooting method
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
9 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 20:07 | history | bounty ended | Artem Zefirov | ||
| Apr 9, 2018 at 20:07 | vote | accept | Artem Zefirov | ||
| Apr 9, 2018 at 19:07 | comment | added | SPPearce |
For my code, with your particular equations you'll need a finer discretization (larger n) or better error control (options for NDSolve) if you try and increase the size of the domain. You can see that oscillations start to grow if you are not careful. But looking at the plot it is very localised, so $\infty =5$ should be fine.
|
|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 15:58 | comment | added | Artem Zefirov | Thank you. But it still interesting what's wrong with discritization in t. Besides, have you any idea why does the stretching of the domain lead to incorrect results. I've set A=-20, B=20. Can normalization fix it? | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 10:42 | history | edited | SPPearce | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
added 1695 characters in body
|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 10:26 | comment | added | SPPearce |
Hmm, If I set h as defined then I can move B away from 1, e.g. 20. But trying to reduce A doesn't work.
|
|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 10:18 | history | edited | SPPearce | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
edited body
|
| Apr 9, 2018 at 9:17 | comment | added | Artem Zefirov | I've fixed the error concerning h but it didn't help. I've tried also to use the second order derivative in t, but it doesn't fix the problem. Moreover, application of the second order derivative with current settings produces the next warning: NDSolve::bvluc: The equations derived from the boundary conditions are numerically ill-conditioned. The boundary conditions may not be sufficient to uniquely define a solution. If a solution is computed, it may match the boundary conditions poorly. | |
| Apr 9, 2018 at 5:26 | history | answered | SPPearce | CC BY-SA 3.0 |