A perturbed function has a stationary point, while the unperturbed has not
$begingroup$
I am looking for extrema of the function
$$ B(x,y) = frac{1}{x} Big[ F(y) - epsilon [log(x-y) +1] Big]$$
limited to the the domain $Omega = {y ge 0, x geq y} $
$F$ is a twice differentiable function such that $F(0) = 0$ and having one only stationary point (a maximum) for a $y_0$, $y_0 > 0$.
In general I would like a closed-form solution, but it seems rather unfeasible so I would settle for a characterisation for small $epsilon$.
If $epsilon = 0$, setting the partial derivatives to zero yields
begin{array}{lcl} -frac{1}{x^2}F(y) & = & 0 \ frac{1}{x} F^prime (y)& = & 0end{array}
and it can be concluded that no stationary point exists.
However, taking a point of the form $ (x, y_0) $, the partial derivatives $to 0$ for $xto infty$, and in this sense one could maybe state there is a stationary point at infinity.
On the other hand, for $epsilon neq 0$ a proper stationary point does exist.
I would like to have a characterisation of the stationary point for small $epsilon$, if not a closed form solution, an asymptotic description or so.
For example, if a function $Y(epsilon)$ were to be defined, such that it returns the $y$ coordinate of the stationary point for a certain value of the perturbation parameter $epsilon$,
a "Big O" description of the function $Y$ would be very interesting.
I thought something like perturbation theory could be of assistance, but the problem is that the unperturbed problem has not got a solution.
I tried to handle the stationary point "at infinity" with the coordinate transformation $z = frac{1}{x}$, but with little success.
Ths question is related to System of equations and perturbation methods, which regretfully contained multiple errors in its formulation.
Thanks
perturbation-theory
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am looking for extrema of the function
$$ B(x,y) = frac{1}{x} Big[ F(y) - epsilon [log(x-y) +1] Big]$$
limited to the the domain $Omega = {y ge 0, x geq y} $
$F$ is a twice differentiable function such that $F(0) = 0$ and having one only stationary point (a maximum) for a $y_0$, $y_0 > 0$.
In general I would like a closed-form solution, but it seems rather unfeasible so I would settle for a characterisation for small $epsilon$.
If $epsilon = 0$, setting the partial derivatives to zero yields
begin{array}{lcl} -frac{1}{x^2}F(y) & = & 0 \ frac{1}{x} F^prime (y)& = & 0end{array}
and it can be concluded that no stationary point exists.
However, taking a point of the form $ (x, y_0) $, the partial derivatives $to 0$ for $xto infty$, and in this sense one could maybe state there is a stationary point at infinity.
On the other hand, for $epsilon neq 0$ a proper stationary point does exist.
I would like to have a characterisation of the stationary point for small $epsilon$, if not a closed form solution, an asymptotic description or so.
For example, if a function $Y(epsilon)$ were to be defined, such that it returns the $y$ coordinate of the stationary point for a certain value of the perturbation parameter $epsilon$,
a "Big O" description of the function $Y$ would be very interesting.
I thought something like perturbation theory could be of assistance, but the problem is that the unperturbed problem has not got a solution.
I tried to handle the stationary point "at infinity" with the coordinate transformation $z = frac{1}{x}$, but with little success.
Ths question is related to System of equations and perturbation methods, which regretfully contained multiple errors in its formulation.
Thanks
perturbation-theory
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
maybe try rewriting in $u,v=1/x,1/y$ and then the optimal $u,v$ might be $O(epsilon)$
$endgroup$
– user617446
Jan 15 at 12:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I am looking for extrema of the function
$$ B(x,y) = frac{1}{x} Big[ F(y) - epsilon [log(x-y) +1] Big]$$
limited to the the domain $Omega = {y ge 0, x geq y} $
$F$ is a twice differentiable function such that $F(0) = 0$ and having one only stationary point (a maximum) for a $y_0$, $y_0 > 0$.
In general I would like a closed-form solution, but it seems rather unfeasible so I would settle for a characterisation for small $epsilon$.
If $epsilon = 0$, setting the partial derivatives to zero yields
begin{array}{lcl} -frac{1}{x^2}F(y) & = & 0 \ frac{1}{x} F^prime (y)& = & 0end{array}
and it can be concluded that no stationary point exists.
However, taking a point of the form $ (x, y_0) $, the partial derivatives $to 0$ for $xto infty$, and in this sense one could maybe state there is a stationary point at infinity.
On the other hand, for $epsilon neq 0$ a proper stationary point does exist.
I would like to have a characterisation of the stationary point for small $epsilon$, if not a closed form solution, an asymptotic description or so.
For example, if a function $Y(epsilon)$ were to be defined, such that it returns the $y$ coordinate of the stationary point for a certain value of the perturbation parameter $epsilon$,
a "Big O" description of the function $Y$ would be very interesting.
I thought something like perturbation theory could be of assistance, but the problem is that the unperturbed problem has not got a solution.
I tried to handle the stationary point "at infinity" with the coordinate transformation $z = frac{1}{x}$, but with little success.
Ths question is related to System of equations and perturbation methods, which regretfully contained multiple errors in its formulation.
Thanks
perturbation-theory
$endgroup$
I am looking for extrema of the function
$$ B(x,y) = frac{1}{x} Big[ F(y) - epsilon [log(x-y) +1] Big]$$
limited to the the domain $Omega = {y ge 0, x geq y} $
$F$ is a twice differentiable function such that $F(0) = 0$ and having one only stationary point (a maximum) for a $y_0$, $y_0 > 0$.
In general I would like a closed-form solution, but it seems rather unfeasible so I would settle for a characterisation for small $epsilon$.
If $epsilon = 0$, setting the partial derivatives to zero yields
begin{array}{lcl} -frac{1}{x^2}F(y) & = & 0 \ frac{1}{x} F^prime (y)& = & 0end{array}
and it can be concluded that no stationary point exists.
However, taking a point of the form $ (x, y_0) $, the partial derivatives $to 0$ for $xto infty$, and in this sense one could maybe state there is a stationary point at infinity.
On the other hand, for $epsilon neq 0$ a proper stationary point does exist.
I would like to have a characterisation of the stationary point for small $epsilon$, if not a closed form solution, an asymptotic description or so.
For example, if a function $Y(epsilon)$ were to be defined, such that it returns the $y$ coordinate of the stationary point for a certain value of the perturbation parameter $epsilon$,
a "Big O" description of the function $Y$ would be very interesting.
I thought something like perturbation theory could be of assistance, but the problem is that the unperturbed problem has not got a solution.
I tried to handle the stationary point "at infinity" with the coordinate transformation $z = frac{1}{x}$, but with little success.
Ths question is related to System of equations and perturbation methods, which regretfully contained multiple errors in its formulation.
Thanks
perturbation-theory
perturbation-theory
edited Jan 9 at 12:00
An aedonist
asked Jan 8 at 10:33
An aedonistAn aedonist
2,020619
2,020619
$begingroup$
maybe try rewriting in $u,v=1/x,1/y$ and then the optimal $u,v$ might be $O(epsilon)$
$endgroup$
– user617446
Jan 15 at 12:17
add a comment |
$begingroup$
maybe try rewriting in $u,v=1/x,1/y$ and then the optimal $u,v$ might be $O(epsilon)$
$endgroup$
– user617446
Jan 15 at 12:17
$begingroup$
maybe try rewriting in $u,v=1/x,1/y$ and then the optimal $u,v$ might be $O(epsilon)$
$endgroup$
– user617446
Jan 15 at 12:17
$begingroup$
maybe try rewriting in $u,v=1/x,1/y$ and then the optimal $u,v$ might be $O(epsilon)$
$endgroup$
– user617446
Jan 15 at 12:17
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For the stationary point, you obtain the equations
$$
frac{1}{x}left(F'(y) + frac{epsilon}{x-y}right) = 0,\
frac{1}{x^2}left(F(y) + epsilonfrac{y}{x-y}-epsilon log(x-y)right) = 0.
$$
You can solve the first equation for $x$ to obtain
$$
x = y - frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}.
$$
Note that the condition $x geq y$ implies $F'(y)<0$. Substituting the above expression for $x$ in the second equation yields
$$
left(frac{F'(y)}{epsilon - y F'(y)}right)^2left[-F(y) + y F'(y) + epsilon logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)right] = 0.
$$
Now, there are two distinct possibilities to obtain a solution to this equation for small $epsilon$.
First, suppose $F'(y)$ is $mathcal{O}(1)$ for small $epsilon$. Then, the term $epsilon log (-epsilon/F'(y))$ is small in $epsilon$, so the leading order equation to satisfy is $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. Suppose we can find a value for $y := hat{y}$ such that this leading order equation is satisfied (note that, necessarily, $F(hat{y})<0$). Then, we have
$$
x = hat{y} - epsilon frac{1}{F'(hat{y})} + text{higher order terms}
$$
and
$$
y = hat{y} - frac{epsilon}{hat{y} F''(hat{y})} logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(hat{y})}right).
$$
However, given your comments, I suspect that the example functions $F$ that you tried numerically are such that we cannot find a solution to $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. So, let's assume that this equation does not have a solution. In that case, we see that the term $epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)$ must be of the same order as $-F(y) + y F'(y)$. This means in particular that $F'(y)$ must be small. This inspires us to focus on a neighbourhood of the local maximum $y_0$, where $F'(y_0) = 0$. Writing $y = y_0 + eta$, we obtain to leading order (check this!) the equation
$$
-F(y_0) + epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0) eta}right) = 0
$$
(note that the argument of the logarithm is positive as $F''(y_0) < 0$ since $y_0$ is a local maximum, and $eta > 0$ since $F'(y) < 0$, i.e. we are at the right side of the local maximum), which we can solve to obtain to leading order
$$
y = y_0 - frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0)} expleft(-frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right),
$$
so
$$
x = expleft(frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right)
$$
to leading order. The latter confirms your idea that there is a solution of the unperturbed equation `for $x$ at infinity', in some sense.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Dear Frits, thanks a lot for this. In the last days i luckily came to follow exactly the same path, but of course i did know already, as you cleverly supposed, that the equation $-F+yF^prime=0$ has no solutions. Thank you ever so much, great support.
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 17 at 9:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have $frac{dB}{dy}=frac{1}{x}(F'(y)+frac{epsilon}{x-y})$ So you can write $x=y-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}$.
$frac{dB}{dx}=frac{-1}{x^2}(F(y)-epsilon (log{(x-y)}+1)) - frac{epsilon}{x(x-y)}=0$
You can substitute for $x$ in this and get an equation in just $y$ which you will probably have to solve numerically.
Some More Thoughts.
You can make $B$ as large as you like by taking $y$ close to $x$. If you track down a line parallel and close to $y=x$ then there is a maximum I think roughly at the maximum of $F(x)/x$ (??).
Also, consider being on the x-axis, ($y=0$). There is a minimum at $x=1$. Now consider being on a line close to the x-axis $y=y_1$. Then you can approximate for small $y_1$ and find a minimum at $x=exp({frac{F(y_1)}{epsilon})}$. (Note: $F(y_1)$ is small.) I know this is only a minimum for a given fixed $y$, but some further thought may lead you somewhere.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thanks for your answer. I have already tried your suggestion, but it is not a numerical solution i sm looking for ( i have computed it already anyhow, that is actually what made me sure one only ststionary point exists). Thanks anyhow
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 8 at 18:52
$begingroup$
many thanks for your edits. I will ponder on the first part: the second bit i have already thought about in the past. Albeit intetesting in itself, the focus os on the stationary point, which for small $epsilon$ does not occur for small $y$
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 9 at 15:37
add a comment |
Your Answer
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%2f3066014%2fa-perturbed-function-has-a-stationary-point-while-the-unperturbed-has-not%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
For the stationary point, you obtain the equations
$$
frac{1}{x}left(F'(y) + frac{epsilon}{x-y}right) = 0,\
frac{1}{x^2}left(F(y) + epsilonfrac{y}{x-y}-epsilon log(x-y)right) = 0.
$$
You can solve the first equation for $x$ to obtain
$$
x = y - frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}.
$$
Note that the condition $x geq y$ implies $F'(y)<0$. Substituting the above expression for $x$ in the second equation yields
$$
left(frac{F'(y)}{epsilon - y F'(y)}right)^2left[-F(y) + y F'(y) + epsilon logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)right] = 0.
$$
Now, there are two distinct possibilities to obtain a solution to this equation for small $epsilon$.
First, suppose $F'(y)$ is $mathcal{O}(1)$ for small $epsilon$. Then, the term $epsilon log (-epsilon/F'(y))$ is small in $epsilon$, so the leading order equation to satisfy is $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. Suppose we can find a value for $y := hat{y}$ such that this leading order equation is satisfied (note that, necessarily, $F(hat{y})<0$). Then, we have
$$
x = hat{y} - epsilon frac{1}{F'(hat{y})} + text{higher order terms}
$$
and
$$
y = hat{y} - frac{epsilon}{hat{y} F''(hat{y})} logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(hat{y})}right).
$$
However, given your comments, I suspect that the example functions $F$ that you tried numerically are such that we cannot find a solution to $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. So, let's assume that this equation does not have a solution. In that case, we see that the term $epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)$ must be of the same order as $-F(y) + y F'(y)$. This means in particular that $F'(y)$ must be small. This inspires us to focus on a neighbourhood of the local maximum $y_0$, where $F'(y_0) = 0$. Writing $y = y_0 + eta$, we obtain to leading order (check this!) the equation
$$
-F(y_0) + epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0) eta}right) = 0
$$
(note that the argument of the logarithm is positive as $F''(y_0) < 0$ since $y_0$ is a local maximum, and $eta > 0$ since $F'(y) < 0$, i.e. we are at the right side of the local maximum), which we can solve to obtain to leading order
$$
y = y_0 - frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0)} expleft(-frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right),
$$
so
$$
x = expleft(frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right)
$$
to leading order. The latter confirms your idea that there is a solution of the unperturbed equation `for $x$ at infinity', in some sense.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Dear Frits, thanks a lot for this. In the last days i luckily came to follow exactly the same path, but of course i did know already, as you cleverly supposed, that the equation $-F+yF^prime=0$ has no solutions. Thank you ever so much, great support.
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 17 at 9:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the stationary point, you obtain the equations
$$
frac{1}{x}left(F'(y) + frac{epsilon}{x-y}right) = 0,\
frac{1}{x^2}left(F(y) + epsilonfrac{y}{x-y}-epsilon log(x-y)right) = 0.
$$
You can solve the first equation for $x$ to obtain
$$
x = y - frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}.
$$
Note that the condition $x geq y$ implies $F'(y)<0$. Substituting the above expression for $x$ in the second equation yields
$$
left(frac{F'(y)}{epsilon - y F'(y)}right)^2left[-F(y) + y F'(y) + epsilon logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)right] = 0.
$$
Now, there are two distinct possibilities to obtain a solution to this equation for small $epsilon$.
First, suppose $F'(y)$ is $mathcal{O}(1)$ for small $epsilon$. Then, the term $epsilon log (-epsilon/F'(y))$ is small in $epsilon$, so the leading order equation to satisfy is $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. Suppose we can find a value for $y := hat{y}$ such that this leading order equation is satisfied (note that, necessarily, $F(hat{y})<0$). Then, we have
$$
x = hat{y} - epsilon frac{1}{F'(hat{y})} + text{higher order terms}
$$
and
$$
y = hat{y} - frac{epsilon}{hat{y} F''(hat{y})} logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(hat{y})}right).
$$
However, given your comments, I suspect that the example functions $F$ that you tried numerically are such that we cannot find a solution to $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. So, let's assume that this equation does not have a solution. In that case, we see that the term $epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)$ must be of the same order as $-F(y) + y F'(y)$. This means in particular that $F'(y)$ must be small. This inspires us to focus on a neighbourhood of the local maximum $y_0$, where $F'(y_0) = 0$. Writing $y = y_0 + eta$, we obtain to leading order (check this!) the equation
$$
-F(y_0) + epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0) eta}right) = 0
$$
(note that the argument of the logarithm is positive as $F''(y_0) < 0$ since $y_0$ is a local maximum, and $eta > 0$ since $F'(y) < 0$, i.e. we are at the right side of the local maximum), which we can solve to obtain to leading order
$$
y = y_0 - frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0)} expleft(-frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right),
$$
so
$$
x = expleft(frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right)
$$
to leading order. The latter confirms your idea that there is a solution of the unperturbed equation `for $x$ at infinity', in some sense.
$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
Dear Frits, thanks a lot for this. In the last days i luckily came to follow exactly the same path, but of course i did know already, as you cleverly supposed, that the equation $-F+yF^prime=0$ has no solutions. Thank you ever so much, great support.
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 17 at 9:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
For the stationary point, you obtain the equations
$$
frac{1}{x}left(F'(y) + frac{epsilon}{x-y}right) = 0,\
frac{1}{x^2}left(F(y) + epsilonfrac{y}{x-y}-epsilon log(x-y)right) = 0.
$$
You can solve the first equation for $x$ to obtain
$$
x = y - frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}.
$$
Note that the condition $x geq y$ implies $F'(y)<0$. Substituting the above expression for $x$ in the second equation yields
$$
left(frac{F'(y)}{epsilon - y F'(y)}right)^2left[-F(y) + y F'(y) + epsilon logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)right] = 0.
$$
Now, there are two distinct possibilities to obtain a solution to this equation for small $epsilon$.
First, suppose $F'(y)$ is $mathcal{O}(1)$ for small $epsilon$. Then, the term $epsilon log (-epsilon/F'(y))$ is small in $epsilon$, so the leading order equation to satisfy is $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. Suppose we can find a value for $y := hat{y}$ such that this leading order equation is satisfied (note that, necessarily, $F(hat{y})<0$). Then, we have
$$
x = hat{y} - epsilon frac{1}{F'(hat{y})} + text{higher order terms}
$$
and
$$
y = hat{y} - frac{epsilon}{hat{y} F''(hat{y})} logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(hat{y})}right).
$$
However, given your comments, I suspect that the example functions $F$ that you tried numerically are such that we cannot find a solution to $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. So, let's assume that this equation does not have a solution. In that case, we see that the term $epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)$ must be of the same order as $-F(y) + y F'(y)$. This means in particular that $F'(y)$ must be small. This inspires us to focus on a neighbourhood of the local maximum $y_0$, where $F'(y_0) = 0$. Writing $y = y_0 + eta$, we obtain to leading order (check this!) the equation
$$
-F(y_0) + epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0) eta}right) = 0
$$
(note that the argument of the logarithm is positive as $F''(y_0) < 0$ since $y_0$ is a local maximum, and $eta > 0$ since $F'(y) < 0$, i.e. we are at the right side of the local maximum), which we can solve to obtain to leading order
$$
y = y_0 - frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0)} expleft(-frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right),
$$
so
$$
x = expleft(frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right)
$$
to leading order. The latter confirms your idea that there is a solution of the unperturbed equation `for $x$ at infinity', in some sense.
$endgroup$
For the stationary point, you obtain the equations
$$
frac{1}{x}left(F'(y) + frac{epsilon}{x-y}right) = 0,\
frac{1}{x^2}left(F(y) + epsilonfrac{y}{x-y}-epsilon log(x-y)right) = 0.
$$
You can solve the first equation for $x$ to obtain
$$
x = y - frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}.
$$
Note that the condition $x geq y$ implies $F'(y)<0$. Substituting the above expression for $x$ in the second equation yields
$$
left(frac{F'(y)}{epsilon - y F'(y)}right)^2left[-F(y) + y F'(y) + epsilon logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)right] = 0.
$$
Now, there are two distinct possibilities to obtain a solution to this equation for small $epsilon$.
First, suppose $F'(y)$ is $mathcal{O}(1)$ for small $epsilon$. Then, the term $epsilon log (-epsilon/F'(y))$ is small in $epsilon$, so the leading order equation to satisfy is $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. Suppose we can find a value for $y := hat{y}$ such that this leading order equation is satisfied (note that, necessarily, $F(hat{y})<0$). Then, we have
$$
x = hat{y} - epsilon frac{1}{F'(hat{y})} + text{higher order terms}
$$
and
$$
y = hat{y} - frac{epsilon}{hat{y} F''(hat{y})} logleft(-frac{epsilon}{F'(hat{y})}right).
$$
However, given your comments, I suspect that the example functions $F$ that you tried numerically are such that we cannot find a solution to $- F(y) + y F'(y) = 0$. So, let's assume that this equation does not have a solution. In that case, we see that the term $epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}right)$ must be of the same order as $-F(y) + y F'(y)$. This means in particular that $F'(y)$ must be small. This inspires us to focus on a neighbourhood of the local maximum $y_0$, where $F'(y_0) = 0$. Writing $y = y_0 + eta$, we obtain to leading order (check this!) the equation
$$
-F(y_0) + epsilon log left(-frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0) eta}right) = 0
$$
(note that the argument of the logarithm is positive as $F''(y_0) < 0$ since $y_0$ is a local maximum, and $eta > 0$ since $F'(y) < 0$, i.e. we are at the right side of the local maximum), which we can solve to obtain to leading order
$$
y = y_0 - frac{epsilon}{F''(y_0)} expleft(-frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right),
$$
so
$$
x = expleft(frac{F(y_0)}{epsilon}right)
$$
to leading order. The latter confirms your idea that there is a solution of the unperturbed equation `for $x$ at infinity', in some sense.
answered Jan 15 at 16:46
Frits VeermanFrits Veerman
7,1312921
7,1312921
1
$begingroup$
Dear Frits, thanks a lot for this. In the last days i luckily came to follow exactly the same path, but of course i did know already, as you cleverly supposed, that the equation $-F+yF^prime=0$ has no solutions. Thank you ever so much, great support.
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 17 at 9:50
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
Dear Frits, thanks a lot for this. In the last days i luckily came to follow exactly the same path, but of course i did know already, as you cleverly supposed, that the equation $-F+yF^prime=0$ has no solutions. Thank you ever so much, great support.
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 17 at 9:50
1
1
$begingroup$
Dear Frits, thanks a lot for this. In the last days i luckily came to follow exactly the same path, but of course i did know already, as you cleverly supposed, that the equation $-F+yF^prime=0$ has no solutions. Thank you ever so much, great support.
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 17 at 9:50
$begingroup$
Dear Frits, thanks a lot for this. In the last days i luckily came to follow exactly the same path, but of course i did know already, as you cleverly supposed, that the equation $-F+yF^prime=0$ has no solutions. Thank you ever so much, great support.
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 17 at 9:50
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have $frac{dB}{dy}=frac{1}{x}(F'(y)+frac{epsilon}{x-y})$ So you can write $x=y-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}$.
$frac{dB}{dx}=frac{-1}{x^2}(F(y)-epsilon (log{(x-y)}+1)) - frac{epsilon}{x(x-y)}=0$
You can substitute for $x$ in this and get an equation in just $y$ which you will probably have to solve numerically.
Some More Thoughts.
You can make $B$ as large as you like by taking $y$ close to $x$. If you track down a line parallel and close to $y=x$ then there is a maximum I think roughly at the maximum of $F(x)/x$ (??).
Also, consider being on the x-axis, ($y=0$). There is a minimum at $x=1$. Now consider being on a line close to the x-axis $y=y_1$. Then you can approximate for small $y_1$ and find a minimum at $x=exp({frac{F(y_1)}{epsilon})}$. (Note: $F(y_1)$ is small.) I know this is only a minimum for a given fixed $y$, but some further thought may lead you somewhere.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thanks for your answer. I have already tried your suggestion, but it is not a numerical solution i sm looking for ( i have computed it already anyhow, that is actually what made me sure one only ststionary point exists). Thanks anyhow
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 8 at 18:52
$begingroup$
many thanks for your edits. I will ponder on the first part: the second bit i have already thought about in the past. Albeit intetesting in itself, the focus os on the stationary point, which for small $epsilon$ does not occur for small $y$
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 9 at 15:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have $frac{dB}{dy}=frac{1}{x}(F'(y)+frac{epsilon}{x-y})$ So you can write $x=y-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}$.
$frac{dB}{dx}=frac{-1}{x^2}(F(y)-epsilon (log{(x-y)}+1)) - frac{epsilon}{x(x-y)}=0$
You can substitute for $x$ in this and get an equation in just $y$ which you will probably have to solve numerically.
Some More Thoughts.
You can make $B$ as large as you like by taking $y$ close to $x$. If you track down a line parallel and close to $y=x$ then there is a maximum I think roughly at the maximum of $F(x)/x$ (??).
Also, consider being on the x-axis, ($y=0$). There is a minimum at $x=1$. Now consider being on a line close to the x-axis $y=y_1$. Then you can approximate for small $y_1$ and find a minimum at $x=exp({frac{F(y_1)}{epsilon})}$. (Note: $F(y_1)$ is small.) I know this is only a minimum for a given fixed $y$, but some further thought may lead you somewhere.
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
thanks for your answer. I have already tried your suggestion, but it is not a numerical solution i sm looking for ( i have computed it already anyhow, that is actually what made me sure one only ststionary point exists). Thanks anyhow
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 8 at 18:52
$begingroup$
many thanks for your edits. I will ponder on the first part: the second bit i have already thought about in the past. Albeit intetesting in itself, the focus os on the stationary point, which for small $epsilon$ does not occur for small $y$
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 9 at 15:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
You have $frac{dB}{dy}=frac{1}{x}(F'(y)+frac{epsilon}{x-y})$ So you can write $x=y-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}$.
$frac{dB}{dx}=frac{-1}{x^2}(F(y)-epsilon (log{(x-y)}+1)) - frac{epsilon}{x(x-y)}=0$
You can substitute for $x$ in this and get an equation in just $y$ which you will probably have to solve numerically.
Some More Thoughts.
You can make $B$ as large as you like by taking $y$ close to $x$. If you track down a line parallel and close to $y=x$ then there is a maximum I think roughly at the maximum of $F(x)/x$ (??).
Also, consider being on the x-axis, ($y=0$). There is a minimum at $x=1$. Now consider being on a line close to the x-axis $y=y_1$. Then you can approximate for small $y_1$ and find a minimum at $x=exp({frac{F(y_1)}{epsilon})}$. (Note: $F(y_1)$ is small.) I know this is only a minimum for a given fixed $y$, but some further thought may lead you somewhere.
$endgroup$
You have $frac{dB}{dy}=frac{1}{x}(F'(y)+frac{epsilon}{x-y})$ So you can write $x=y-frac{epsilon}{F'(y)}$.
$frac{dB}{dx}=frac{-1}{x^2}(F(y)-epsilon (log{(x-y)}+1)) - frac{epsilon}{x(x-y)}=0$
You can substitute for $x$ in this and get an equation in just $y$ which you will probably have to solve numerically.
Some More Thoughts.
You can make $B$ as large as you like by taking $y$ close to $x$. If you track down a line parallel and close to $y=x$ then there is a maximum I think roughly at the maximum of $F(x)/x$ (??).
Also, consider being on the x-axis, ($y=0$). There is a minimum at $x=1$. Now consider being on a line close to the x-axis $y=y_1$. Then you can approximate for small $y_1$ and find a minimum at $x=exp({frac{F(y_1)}{epsilon})}$. (Note: $F(y_1)$ is small.) I know this is only a minimum for a given fixed $y$, but some further thought may lead you somewhere.
edited Jan 9 at 13:51
answered Jan 8 at 13:48
user121049user121049
1,360174
1,360174
$begingroup$
thanks for your answer. I have already tried your suggestion, but it is not a numerical solution i sm looking for ( i have computed it already anyhow, that is actually what made me sure one only ststionary point exists). Thanks anyhow
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 8 at 18:52
$begingroup$
many thanks for your edits. I will ponder on the first part: the second bit i have already thought about in the past. Albeit intetesting in itself, the focus os on the stationary point, which for small $epsilon$ does not occur for small $y$
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 9 at 15:37
add a comment |
$begingroup$
thanks for your answer. I have already tried your suggestion, but it is not a numerical solution i sm looking for ( i have computed it already anyhow, that is actually what made me sure one only ststionary point exists). Thanks anyhow
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 8 at 18:52
$begingroup$
many thanks for your edits. I will ponder on the first part: the second bit i have already thought about in the past. Albeit intetesting in itself, the focus os on the stationary point, which for small $epsilon$ does not occur for small $y$
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 9 at 15:37
$begingroup$
thanks for your answer. I have already tried your suggestion, but it is not a numerical solution i sm looking for ( i have computed it already anyhow, that is actually what made me sure one only ststionary point exists). Thanks anyhow
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 8 at 18:52
$begingroup$
thanks for your answer. I have already tried your suggestion, but it is not a numerical solution i sm looking for ( i have computed it already anyhow, that is actually what made me sure one only ststionary point exists). Thanks anyhow
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 8 at 18:52
$begingroup$
many thanks for your edits. I will ponder on the first part: the second bit i have already thought about in the past. Albeit intetesting in itself, the focus os on the stationary point, which for small $epsilon$ does not occur for small $y$
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 9 at 15:37
$begingroup$
many thanks for your edits. I will ponder on the first part: the second bit i have already thought about in the past. Albeit intetesting in itself, the focus os on the stationary point, which for small $epsilon$ does not occur for small $y$
$endgroup$
– An aedonist
Jan 9 at 15:37
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%2f3066014%2fa-perturbed-function-has-a-stationary-point-while-the-unperturbed-has-not%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
$begingroup$
maybe try rewriting in $u,v=1/x,1/y$ and then the optimal $u,v$ might be $O(epsilon)$
$endgroup$
– user617446
Jan 15 at 12:17