comp.lang.idl-pvwave archive
Messages from Usenet group comp.lang.idl-pvwave, compiled by Paulo Penteado

Home » Public Forums » archive » Solving system of ODEs backwards in time?
Show: Today's Messages :: Show Polls :: Message Navigator
E-mail to friend 
Return to the default flat view Create a new topic Submit Reply
Re: Solving system of ODEs backwards in time? [message #94651 is a reply to message #94650] Fri, 04 August 2017 13:01 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
BLesht is currently offline  BLesht
Messages: 89
Registered: March 2007
Member
Hi Craig,

I'm sorry to seem dense, but I don't see how that applies. Perhaps I haven't explained my problem sufficiently, or perhaps I really don't understand the nuances, or maybe I've been misapplying LSODE (or all the above).

I have a system of 19 coupled ODEs. Let C be the 19 element vector representing the state of the system at time point i. The vector of derivatives is dC(i)/dt = (W(i) + A(i) dot C(i)) / V in which W is a 19-element vector that changes at every point i, A is a 19x19 "transfer" matrix expressing the couplings among the state variables (many zeros) but which also changes at every point i, and V is a 19-element constant vector. Given an initial condition C0, I have been been using LSODE is advance the solution from time i to time i+1 (calculating C(i+1) using a time step of i/4. I repeated those steps for the desired number of i steps.

This seems to work (at least provides answers that agree well with observations) going forward. What I want to do now is start with a known state at time i, and sets of known W vectors and A matrices for times i-1, i-2, ... i-n and find what C(i-n) would have had to be to result in the observed C(i) given that set of W vectors and A matrices.

What confused me when I was trying to set this up myself was that the state at time i, depends on both the state at time i-1 and the derivatives based on the state at time i-1. That is, the derivative at time i-1 can't be computed without knowing the state at time i-1 because of the A dot C term.

Thanks, Barry
[Message index]
 
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Read Message
Previous Topic: IDL 8.6.1 and ENVI 5.4 SP1 now available
Next Topic: Re: FFT confusion

-=] Back to Top [=-
[ Syndicate this forum (XML) ] [ RSS ] [ PDF ]

Current Time: Wed Oct 08 13:54:54 PDT 2025

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.00385 seconds