Welcome to MathOverflow

Question

0

1

I want to find the a 3 term perturbation soln of (i) $(1+x)^3 = ex$ where $e\ll1$

Direct substitution of the regular perturbation series $x = x_0 + ex_1 + e^2x_2$ into (i) does not work

I think soln has the form: $x = x_0 + e^{1/3}*x_1 + e^{2/3}*x_2$ Seems to work, but not sure it is correct

TIA, Matt

flag	asked Feb 7 2012 at 4:09 Matt Brenneman 3●2

1

Does this arise from a modelling problem, or is it an exercise somewhere? – Yemon Choi Feb 7 2012 at 5:48

It is an exercise from Logan's applied math book. I am trying to learn perturbation methods and he seems to have a pretty decent intro to the subject. To be specific, it is problem 7, on page 101. Incidentally, if you happen to have the text, there is what appears to be a very fun problem directly preceding it, which I believe is a generalization of this problem, but which I have not yet been able to crack either. I am not sure the soln admits of a regular perturbation series, but if you play around with it a bit, it seems like it must be. – Matt Brenneman Feb 7 2012 at 6:00

This is not my area, and I don't know the book, but I'm not sure the question is really on topic for the site, see mathoverflow.net/faq#whatnot – Yemon Choi Feb 7 2012 at 8:38

I would have thought that you want $x$ to be a small perturbation of $-1$... – Yemon Choi Feb 7 2012 at 8:40

unknown: a good opportunity for you to use the Lagrange inversion formula – Pietro Majer Feb 7 2012 at 9:12

Pietro Majer · Accepted Answer · 2012-02-07 09:11:50Z UTC

1

Since $e$ is small, the solution $x$ is close to $-1$. So write $x=-1+u$ and write your equation as $u(1-u)^{-1/3}=-e^{1/3}$. Then use the Lagrange inversion formula.

answered Feb 7 2012 at 9:11

Pietro Majer
19.7k●1●24●69

rmk: This gives a series expansion of $x=-1+u$ in powers of $e^{1/3}$. For large values of $e$ write instead the equation as $x(1+x)^{-3}=1/e$, and get an expansion of the solution in powers of $1/e$. – Pietro Majer Feb 7 2012 at 9:21

1

That is such a beautiful theorem. I knew the solution worked but I didn't know why. I knew there had to be a "formal" justification for why this power series worked, and this is spot on. Thank you so much for introducing me to such a beautiful result!! – Matt Brenneman Feb 9 2012 at 16:40

To Yemon, 1) Yes, x is close to -1, this is the point of the problem (which is that regular perturbation series will not work if one tries x=-1+e*x1+...) 2) I don't understand why my post is not appropriate as I: a) am not a student b) am not trying to start a discussion c) I did not ask for a definition of a term (i.e. my problem had an answer) d) Did not ask a question about MathOverLow. Please correct me if I am wrong or violated the site's policy in some other way, as I respect MathOverflow and do not want to abuse it in any way. Thanks, Matt – Matt Brenneman Feb 9 2012 at 16:46

Regular Perturbation Series soln to eqn

Remember to vote up questions/answers you find interesting or helpful (requires 15 reputation points)

1 Answer

You can accept an answer to one of your own questions by clicking the check mark next to it. This awards 15 reputation points to the person who answered and 2 reputation points to you.