6
$\begingroup$

Consider a wave equation $$\frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial t^2} = c(x)^2 \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} \tag{1}$$ In frequency domain this becomes an ODE: $$-\omega^2 u = c(x)^2 \frac{\partial^2 u}{\partial x^2} \tag{2}$$ We can solve (2) analytically when $c(x)$ is constant, then the solution is $\exp\left(\pm\frac{i \omega}{c} x\right)$. We can also solve it analytically if $c(x)$ is piecewise constant: write in every region-of-constant-$c$ a linear combination of leftward and rightward propagating waves, impose the appropriate continuity conditions on the interfaces between regions with different values of $c$, solve for the coefficients of the linear combinations.

Suppose now that $c(x)$ is some arbitrary function. We can still write it as a limit of piecewise constant functions: $$c(x)=\lim_{\Delta\rightarrow 0^+} \sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty} \left\{\begin{matrix}c(i\Delta) & x\in [i\Delta,(i+1)\Delta[ \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\end{matrix}\right.$$

Let us call these piecewise constant approximations to $c$, $c_{\Delta}$ $$c_{\Delta}(x)=\sum_{i=-\infty}^{\infty} \left\{\begin{matrix}c(i\Delta) & x\in [i\Delta,(i+1)\Delta[ \\ 0 & \text{otherwise}\end{matrix}\right.$$ We can analytically solve, for any strictly positive $\Delta$, $$-\omega^2 u_{\Delta}= c_{\Delta}(x)^2 \frac{\partial^2 u_{\Delta}}{\partial x^2}$$

Question

Is $\lim_{\Delta\rightarrow 0^+} u_{\Delta} = u$?

In other words, can we approximate general solutions of (2) by substituting in a piecewise constant approximation of $c(x)$, and then solving analytically?

I expect the answer to be "no".

  • because $\lim_{\Delta\rightarrow 0^+} c_{\Delta} = c$, but $\lim_{\Delta\rightarrow 0^+} \frac{\partial}{\partial x}c_{\Delta} \neq \frac{\partial}{\partial x} c$, in fact the limit doesn't even exist
  • In literature on numerical solutions of PDEs, I have never seen this suggested as a viable way of approximating solutions of wave equations.
$\endgroup$
1
+100
$\begingroup$

New:

For the initial conditions of $u_\Delta$ choose $u_\Delta(0) = u(0)$ and $u'_\Delta(0) = u'(0)$. Define $v = u - u_\Delta$ and $\delta c = c - c_\Delta$. So $v(0) = v'(0) = 0$. Suppose $c$ is sufficiently well behaved so $u$ is also. $u_\Delta$ should be well behaved excluding a discontinuous second derivative and if ever $c_\Delta = 0$ then $u_\Delta$ and $u''_\Delta$ jumps to zero.

Define $v = u - u_\Delta$ and $\delta c = c - c_\Delta$. Subtracting $$ -\omega^2 v = c_\Delta^2 v'' - (2c\delta c - \delta c^2) u'' $$ Suppose for some $x_0 \geq 0$ we want to know $v(x_0)$. Note if $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ then the sup norm $||\delta c||_{\infty, [0,x_0]} \rightarrow 0$. Since $u''$ and $c$ are well behaved we're arguing $||(2c\delta c - \delta c^2) u''||_{\infty,[0,x_0]} \rightarrow 0$. If this term on the RHS were zero, by the uniqueness theorem $v(x)=0$ on $[0,x_0]$. The fact it approaches zero simply means it perturbs $v(x)$ from $0$ an arbitrarily small amount.

So $u_\Delta \rightarrow u$ as $\Delta \rightarrow 0$ if $c$ is sufficiently nice. I haven't tried to address what a necessary and sufficient condition may be.


Original:

It's hard for me to picture the limit does not hold for a large class of well behaved functions. On the other hand surely we can contrive functions which will break the limit. By work such as Lebesgue's I feel finding a necessary and sufficient condition on functions for the limit to hold may not be easy.

Thoughts for proof: If we can prove the limit holds when $c(x)$ is a polynomial perhaps we can take a limit on the degree to argue the limit holds for many Taylor series.

For convenience scale $c(x)$ by $\omega$. Suppose $c(x)$ is a polynomial and denote $c(x)^2 = c_0 + c_1 x + \cdots + c_n x^{2n}$. If we were able to solve for $u$ and $u_\Delta$ we'd be able to take the limit and see if they match. Applying the Laplace transform which is generally a simplification

\begin{align} \mathcal{L}\{-u\} = -U(s) =& \sum_{0\leq k \leq 2n} \mathcal{L}\{c_k x^k u''\} \\ =& \sum_{0\leq k \leq 2n} (-1)^k c_k \frac{d^k}{ds^k}\bigg[s^2U-su(0)-u'(0)\bigg] \\ =& -c_0 (su(0)+ u'(0)) + c_1 u(0) + \sum_{0\leq k\leq 2n} (-1)^k (c_k s^2-2c_{k+1}s+2c_{k+2}) U^{(k)} \end{align} where $c_{2n+1},c_{2n+2} = 0$.

\begin{align} \mathcal{L}\{-u_\Delta\}=-U_\Delta(s)= & \sum_{0\leq k} \mathcal{L}\Big\{\big(H(x-k\Delta)-H(x-(k+1)\Delta)\big)c(k\Delta)^2 u_\Delta''(x)\Big\} \\ =& \sum_{0\leq k} c(k\Delta)^2 e^{-sk\Delta}\Big[\mathcal{L}\{u''_\Delta(x+k\Delta)\} - e^{-s\Delta}\mathcal{L}\{u''_\Delta(x+(k+1)\Delta)\}\Big] \end{align}

using $\mathcal{L}\{H(x-k\Delta)u''_\Delta(x)\}=\int_0^\infty e^{-sx}H(x-k\Delta)u''_\Delta(x) dx = e^{-sk\Delta}\mathcal{L}\{u''_\Delta(x+k\Delta)\}$ where $H$ is the heaviside function. Unfortunately $u''_\Delta(x)$ is not of the right form. Yet going back and directly solving the original equations for any $\Delta$ seems recursive without a generating formula. Perhaps there's less explicit theorems which can be used.

$\endgroup$

Your Answer

By clicking “Post Your Answer”, you agree to our terms of service, privacy policy and cookie policy

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.