I have typed this code and it comes up phi1_1, phi1_2, phi1_3 also equal to zero. It supposed to be [phi1_1, phi1_2, phi1_3] = [0.445, 0.802, 1] in my calculation. How can I solve it in python
import sympy as sp
from sympy import solveset, Eq, solve, symbols
phi1_1, phi1_2, phi1_3 = symbols('phi1_1 phi1_2 phi1_3')
phi_equation_1 = Eq(18.67 * phi1_1 + -10.36 * phi1_2 + 0 * phi1_3, 0)
phi_equation_2 = Eq(-10.36 * phi1_1 + 18.67 * phi1_2 + -10.36 * phi1_3, 0)
phi_equation_3 = Eq(0 * phi1_1 + -10.36 * phi1_2 + 8.31 * phi1_3, 0)
solve_ans = solve([phi_equation_1, phi_equation_2, phi_equation_3], (phi1_1, phi1_2, phi1_3))
print(solve_ans)
I have one exponential equation with two unknowns, say:
y*exp(ix) = sqrt(2) + i * sqrt(2)
Manually, I can transform it to system of trigonometric equations:
y * cos x = sqrt(2)
y * sin x = sqrt(2)
How can I do it automatically in sympy?
I tried this:
from sympy import *
x = Symbol('x', real=True)
y = Symbol('y', real=True)
eq = Eq(y * cos(I * x), sqrt(2) + I * sqrt(2))
print([e.trigsimp() for e in eq.as_real_imag()])
but only got two identical equations except one had "re" before it and another one "im".
You can call the method .rewrite(sin) or .rewrite(cos) to obtain the desired form of your equation. Unfortunately, as_real_imag cannot be called on an Equation directly but you could do something like this:
from sympy import *
def eq_as_real_imag(eq):
lhs_ri = eq.lhs.as_real_imag()
rhs_ri = eq.rhs.as_real_imag()
return Eq(lhs_ri[0], rhs_ri[0]), Eq(lhs_ri[1], rhs_ri[1])
x = Symbol('x', real=True)
y = Symbol('y', real=True)
original_eq = Eq(y*exp(I*x), sqrt(2) + I*sqrt(2))
trig_eq = original_eq.rewrite(sin) # Eq(y*(I*sin(x) + cos(x)), sqrt(2) + sqrt(2)*I)
eq_real, eq_imag = eq_as_real_imag(trig_eq)
print(eq_real) # Eq(y*cos(x), sqrt(2))
print(eq_imag) # Eq(y*sin(x), sqrt(2))
(You might also have more luck just working with expressions (implicitly understood to be 0) instead of an Equation e.g. eq.lhs - eq.rhs in order to call the method as_real_imag directly)
How can I tell if a sympy expression is a vector? See the following example:
from sympy import *
from sympy.vector import *
N = CoordSys3D('N')
x = symbols('x')
v = x * N.i + x**2 * N.j + x**3 * N.k
type(v)
# sympy.vector.vector.VectorAdd
vf=factor(v)
vfs = vf.as_ordered_factors()
vfs
#[x, N.i + N.j*x + N.k*x**2]
type(vfs[1])
# sympy.core.add.Add
After v was factored, none of its factors have a sympy.vector... type. How can I tell which one of its factors is a vector? Is there a test for that?
SymPy has a variety of ways to search/parse expressions. Something that may work for you is the as_independent method:
>>> vf.as_independent(Vector)
(x, N.i + N.j*x + N.k*x**2)
You Vector-dependent part of vf will be the rightmost element.
I will try and explain exactly what's going on and my issue.
This is a bit mathy and SO doesn't support latex, so sadly I had to resort to images. I hope that's okay.
I don't know why it's inverted, sorry about that.
At any rate, this is a linear system Ax = b where we know A and b, so we can find x, which is our approximation at the next time step. We continue doing this until time t_final.
This is the code
import numpy as np
tau = 2 * np.pi
tau2 = tau * tau
i = complex(0,1)
def solution_f(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) + np.exp(tau * i * x) * np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
def solution_g(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) - np.exp(tau * i * x) * np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
for l in range(2, 12):
N = 2 ** l #number of grid points
dx = 1.0 / N #space between grid points
dx2 = dx * dx
dt = dx #time step
t_final = 1
approximate_f = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
approximate_g = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
#Insert initial conditions
for k in range(N):
approximate_f[k, 0] = np.cos(tau * k * dx)
approximate_g[k, 0] = -i * np.sin(tau * k * dx)
#Create coefficient matrix
A = np.zeros((2 * N, 2 * N), dtype = np.complex)
#First row is special
A[0, 0] = 1 -3*i*dt
A[0, N] = ((2 * dt / dx2) + dt) * i
A[0, N + 1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[0, -1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
#Last row is special
A[N - 1, N - 1] = 1 - (3 * dt) * i
A[N - 1, N] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[N - 1, -2] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[N - 1, -1] = ((2 * dt / dx2) + dt) * i
#middle
for k in range(1, N - 1):
A[k, k] = 1 - (3 * dt) * i
A[k, k + N - 1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
A[k, k + N] = ((2 * dt / dx2) + dt) * i
A[k, k + N + 1] = (-dt / dx2) * i
#Bottom half
A[N :, :N] = A[:N, N:]
A[N:, N:] = A[:N, :N]
Ainv = np.linalg.inv(A)
#Advance through time
time = 0
while time < t_final:
b = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g), axis = 0)
x = np.dot(Ainv, b) #Solve Ax = b
approximate_f = x[:N]
approximate_g = x[N:]
time += dt
approximate_solution = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g), axis=0)
#Calculate the actual solution
actual_f = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
actual_g = np.zeros((N, 1), dtype = np.complex)
for k in range(N):
actual_f[k, 0] = solution_f(t_final, k * dx)
actual_g[k, 0] = solution_g(t_final, k * dx)
actual_solution = np.concatenate((actual_f, actual_g), axis = 0)
print(np.sqrt(dx) * np.linalg.norm(actual_solution - approximate_solution))
It doesn't work. At least not in the beginning, it shouldn't start this slow. I should be unconditionally stable and converge to the right answer.
What's going wrong here?
The L2-norm can be a useful metric to test convergence, but isn't ideal when debugging as it doesn't explain what the problem is. Although your solution should be unconditionally stable, backward Euler won't necessarily converge to the right answer. Just like forward Euler is notoriously unstable (anti-dissipative), backward Euler is notoriously dissipative. Plotting your solutions confirms this. The numerical solutions converge to zero. For a next-order approximation, Crank-Nicolson is a reasonable candidate. The code below contains the more general theta-method so that you can tune the implicit-ness of the solution. theta=0.5 gives CN, theta=1 gives BE, and theta=0 gives FE.
A couple other things that I tweaked:
I selected a more appropriate time step of dt = (dx**2)/2 instead of dt = dx. That latter doesn't converge to the right solution using CN.
It's a minor note, but since t_final isn't guaranteed to be a multiple of dt, you weren't comparing solutions at the same time step.
With regards to your comment about it being slow: As you increase the spatial resolution, your time resolution needs to increase too. Even in your case with dt=dx, you have to perform a (1024 x 1024)*1024 matrix multiplication 1024 times. I didn't find this to take particularly long on my machine. I removed some unneeded concatenation to speed it up a bit, but changing the time step to dt = (dx**2)/2 will really bog things down, unfortunately. You could trying compiling with Numba if you are concerned with speed.
All that said, I didn't find tremendous success with the consistency of CN. I had to set N=2^6 to get anything at t_final=1. Increasing t_final makes this worse, decreasing t_final makes it better. Depending on your needs, you could looking into implementing TR-BDF2 or other linear multistep methods to improve this.
The code with a plot is below:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
tau = 2 * np.pi
tau2 = tau * tau
i = complex(0,1)
def solution_f(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) + np.exp(tau * i * x) * np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
def solution_g(t, x):
return 0.5 * (np.exp(-tau * i * x) * np.exp((2 - tau2) * i * t) - np.exp(tau * i * x) *
np.exp((tau2 + 4) * i * t))
l=6
N = 2 ** l
dx = 1.0 / N
dx2 = dx * dx
dt = dx2/2
t_final = 1.
x_arr = np.arange(0,1,dx)
approximate_f = np.cos(tau*x_arr)
approximate_g = -i*np.sin(tau*x_arr)
H = np.zeros([2*N,2*N], dtype=np.complex)
for k in range(N):
H[k,k] = -3*i*dt
H[k,k+N] = (2/dx2+1)*i*dt
if k==0:
H[k,N+1] = -i/dx2*dt
H[k,-1] = -i/dx2*dt
elif k==N-1:
H[N-1,N] = -i/dx2*dt
H[N-1,-2] = -i/dx2*dt
else:
H[k,k+N-1] = -i/dx2*dt
H[k,k+N+1] = -i/dx2*dt
### Bottom half
H[N :, :N] = H[:N, N:]
H[N:, N:] = H[:N, :N]
### Theta method. 0.5 -> Crank Nicolson
theta=0.5
A = np.eye(2*N)+H*theta
B = np.eye(2*N)-H*(1-theta)
### Precompute for faster computations
mat = np.linalg.inv(A)#B
t = 0
b = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g))
while t < t_final:
t += dt
b = mat#b
approximate_f = b[:N]
approximate_g = b[N:]
approximate_solution = np.concatenate((approximate_f, approximate_g))
#Calculate the actual solution
actual_f = solution_f(t,np.arange(0,1,dx))
actual_g = solution_g(t,np.arange(0,1,dx))
actual_solution = np.concatenate((actual_f, actual_g))
plt.figure(figsize=(7,5))
plt.plot(x_arr,actual_f.real,c="C0",label=r"$Re(f_\mathrm{true})$")
plt.plot(x_arr,actual_f.imag,c="C1",label=r"$Im(f_\mathrm{true})$")
plt.plot(x_arr,approximate_f.real,c="C0",ls="--",label=r"$Re(f_\mathrm{num})$")
plt.plot(x_arr,approximate_f.imag,c="C1",ls="--",label=r"$Im(f_\mathrm{num})$")
plt.legend(loc=3,fontsize=12)
plt.xlabel("x")
plt.savefig("num_approx.png",dpi=150)
I am not going to go through all of your math, but I'm going to offer a suggestion.
The use of a direct calculation for fxx and gxx seems like a good candidate for being numerically unstable. Intuitively a first order method should be expected to make second order mistakes in the terms. Second order mistakes in the individual terms, after passing through that formula, wind up as constant order mistakes in the second derivative. Plus when your step size gets small, you are going to find that a quadratic formula makes even small roundoff mistakes turn into surprisingly large errors.
Instead I would suggest that you start by turning this into a first-order system of 4 functions, f, fx, g, and gx. And then proceed with backward's Euler on that system. Intuitively, with this approach, a first order method creates second order mistakes, which pass through a formula that creates first order mistakes of them. And now you are converging as you should from the start, and are also not as sensitive to propagation of roundoff errors.
Now I face some problem when I use scipy.integrate.ode.
I want to use spectral method (fourier transform) solve a PDE including dispersive and convection term, such as
du/dt = A * d^3 u / dx^3 + C * du/dx
Then from fourier transform this PDE will convert to a set of ODEs in complex space (uk is complex vector)
duk/dt = (A * coeff^3 + C * coeff) * uk
coeff = (2 * pi * i * k) / L
k is wavenumber, (e.g.. k = 0, 1, 2, 3, -4, -3, -2, -1)
i^2 = -1,
L is length of domain.
When I use r = ode(uODE).set_integrator('zvode', method='adams'), python will warn like:
c ZVODE-- At current T (=R1), MXSTEP (=I1) steps
taken on this call before reaching TOUT
In above message, I1 = 500
In above message, R1 = 0.2191432098050D+00
I feel it is because the time step I chosen is too large, however I cannot decrease time step as every step is time consuming for my real problem. Do I have any other way to resolve this problem?
Did you consider solving the ODEs symbolically? With Sympy you can type
import sympy as sy
sy.init_printing() # use IPython for better results
from sympy.abc import A, C, c, x, t # variables
u = sy.Function(b'u')(x,t)
eq = sy.Eq(u.diff(t), c*u)
sl1 = sy.pde.pdsolve(eq, u)
print("The solution of:")
sy.pprint(eq)
print("was determined to be:")
sy.pprint(sl1)
print("")
print("Substituting the coefficient:")
k,L = sy.symbols("k L", real=True)
coeff = (2 * sy.pi * sy.I * k) / L
cc = (A * coeff**3 + C * coeff)
sl2 = sy.simplify(sl1.replace(c, cc))
sy.pprint(sl2)
gives the following output:
The solution of:
∂
──(u(x, t)) = c⋅u(x, t)
∂t
was determined to be:
c⋅t
u(x, t) = F(x)⋅ℯ
Substituting the coefficient:
⎛ 2 2 2⎞
-2⋅ⅈ⋅π⋅k⋅t⋅⎝4⋅π ⋅A⋅k - C⋅L ⎠
──────────────────────────────
3
L
u(x, t) = F(x)⋅ℯ
Note that F(x) depends on your initial values of u(x,t=0), which you need to provide.
Use sl2.rhs.evalf() to substitute in numbers.