arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1111.7149

Status of the differential transformation method

C. Bervillier
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

Further to a recent controversy on whether the differential transformation method (DTM) for solving a differential equation is purely and solely the traditional Taylor series method, it is emphasized that the DTM is currently used, often only, as a technique for (analytically) calculating the power series of the solution (in terms of the initial value parameters). Sometimes, a piecewise analytic continuation process is implemented either in a numerical routine (e.g., within a shooting method) or in a semi-analytical procedure (e.g., to solve a boundary value problem). Emphasized also is the fact that, at the time of its invention, the currently-used basic ingredients of the DTM (that transform a differential equation into a difference equation of same order that is iteratively solvable) were already known for a long time by the "traditional"-Taylor-method users (notably in the elaboration of software packages --numerical routines-- for automatically solving ordinary differential equations). At now, the defenders of the DTM still ignore the, though much better developed, studies of the "traditional"-Taylor-method users who, in turn, seem to ignore similarly the existence of the DTM. The DTM has been given an apparent strong formalization (set on the same footing as the Fourier, Laplace or Mellin transformations). Though often used trivially, it is easily attainable and easily adaptable to different kinds of differentiation procedures. That has made it very attractive. Hence applications to various problems of the Taylor method, and more generally of the power series method (including noninteger powers) has been sketched. It seems that its potential has not been exploited as it could be. After a discussion on the reasons of the "misunderstandings" which have caused the controversy, the preceding topics are concretely illustrated.

Explore related subjects

math-phmath.MP

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

C. Bervillier. 2011-11-30. Status of the differential transformation method. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amc.2012.03.094

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

Why we should condition denoising diffusion generative models on windows of past observations

Data assimilation (DA) is, traditionally, a cycling process that relies on time-dependent priors to propagate information from past observations to future cycles. Using denoising diffusion generative modeling for DA is challenging because standard approaches use a fixed training data set, which in turn leads to a static prior that ignores information from past observations. Because past observations are ignored, DA systems with static priors lead to larger posterior errors than cycling DA systems. Incorporating time-dependent priors into generative models, however, requires expensive and frequent retraining. Motivated by linear systems theory - where the dependence of a prediction of a Kalman filter on past observations decays exponentially - we condition diffusion models on short windows of past observations. Specifically, we describe training procedures for two frameworks: a diffusion DA system predicting the current state given a set of past observations, and a diffusion ``direct observation prediction'' (DOP) system, predicting future observations given a set of past observations. Using a canonical linear system, we show that both systems can achieve the minimal posterior error characteristic of a fully-cycled DA/DOP system, without re-training, provided the time windows are long enough. The linear setup ensures analytical tractability, avoids confounding neural network training errors, and confirms that conditioning on windows of past observations is required for efficient and accurate diffusion-based DA or DOP.

math-ph↗
arXiv2026

The kinematic structures and the inertial geometry of a moving charge

We ask how much of the geometry a charged particle moves in is fixed by its motion, and how much a particle must bring. We ask of a symplectic structure only that it relate velocity to momentum as Hamilton's equations do, and we ask it of every energy at once. In particular, we show that the structures meeting that demand are the canonical one and its twists by a closed two-form of the base. A field provides the two-form, a particle the multiplier before it, which we identify constitutively with its charge. Thus, a single energy governs a family of structures, and each particle takes the one its charge fixes. We then ask what a particle must bring to be given a momentum, and we show that the degree of that map settles the degree at which a field enters Newton's Second Law. An antisymmetric bilinear form returns no Lorentz force, whilst a Randers metric returns one --- a length whose difference from a Riemannian one is linear in the velocity. Moreover, we find that metric already within the twisted structure, as its primitive over a level of the free energy, and its law of transport to be nonlinear, no affine connection being known to serve. Under an indefinite signature the length parts from the dynamics, and the extremals turn from shortest to longest. On the round sphere a monopole flux leaves no such metric, whilst the transport remains and prequantisation, given a unit of action, restricts the charge to a lattice. In this manner, we conclude that each charge-to-mass ratio receives a geometry of its own, so that by a functionalist criterion none of them is the spacetime of a charged particle.

math-ph↗