matlab has the following command:

axis ([-inf inf -inf inf])

where the inf means (something like) "the largest value" and -inf "the smallest value". With this command, you can set the dimension of the axes without having to enter the actual values, which is then robust to changes in parameter values. This is most useful in situations where some of the values are to be fixed and others left to the simulation, say:

axis ([0 inf -inf 1])

What would be the Maple equivalent or workaround?

many thanks.

I recently realized that maple/standard has some plotting capabilities not available in maple/classic. I nevertheless plan to stick with classic except for the occasional printing of graphs. I don't want to write multiple worksheets, so I want my worksheet to know when I'm printing in standard and when I'm printing in classic. I don't want a maple/classic plot to overwrite a maple/standard plot (and vice versa). I want to set some classic-specific and standard-specific options.

I am trying to understand how to customize tickmarks. There are mainly two things I'm interested in : setting the number of tickmarks and/or the spacing between them and controlling the thickness of the tickmarks.

My reference is plot,tickmarks.

Consider the following, based on one of the Maple examples.

1) how do you customize the spacing between tickmarks?

plot(cos(x), x=-2*Pi..2*Pi, tickmarks=[spacing(Pi/2), default]);

plot(cos(x), x=-2*Pi..2*Pi, tickmarks=[spacing(2*Pi), default]);

By unexpected, I mean unexpected to me, of course.

The following substitution fails:

> A := y*(f[x]-z)/(f(x)-y);

> subs({(f[x]-z)/(f(x)-y)=lambda},eval(A));

but if I replace the multiplication by an addition, the substitution works:

> B := y+(f[x]-z)/(f(x)-y);
> subs({(f[x]-z)/(f(x)-y)=lambda},eval(B));

Or if I simplify the expression, the substitution also works:

> C := y*(f[x]-z);
> subs({(f[x]-z)=lambda},eval(C));

How come? Is there a way to make the substitution sought into A?

A while ago, I tried to understand the dynamics of a tricky 3-D system. Back then I received great help from Robert Israel and Doug Meade. After leaving the problem aside for a while, I'm giving it another shot.

I have a 3-D system of ODEs in the variables (x,c,q) defined on an infinite time range. The initial value of x is given, x(0), but the other values c(0) and q(0) are free. The question is whether it is possible to find values of c(0) and q(0) such that the system will converge towards a critical point.

The first difficulty is in locating critical points, i.e. stationary states. Because the system below contains a singularity at a stationary state, the "critical" points must be understood as a limit that may or may not be approached as time goes to infinity. I have reduced the set of candidate critical points to one element (that for which q=b, where b is a parameter of the system, see below). Denote this critical/stationary point by (xs,cs,qs). The second difficulty is in establishing whether the critical point is reached by a stable (or center) manifold, i.e. whether it is possible to find values of c(0) and q(0) such that, given x(0), it is true that as T goes to infinity x(T)->xs, c(T)->cs, and q(T)=qs. My current assessment, based on the calculations below, is that the critical point may be approached if the initial value of x is below the stationary value but not if it is above it, i.e. x(0)<xs, but not if x(0)>xs. And, if I'm correct, the approach is along a one-dimensional manifold. I'm not 100 percent sure of myself, hence my message on mapleprimes.

The transformed system (u,v,r) appears to exhibit a stable manifold converging to the stationary state u=v=0 and r=b, for r(0) given. Does this indicate that, likewise, the system (x,c,q) has a stable manifold?

many thanks for your help.

My worksheet with comments follows. Unfortunately, today I do not seem to be able to insert figures into the code below.

> restart: with(plots): plotsetup(default): with(plottools): with(DEtools): with(LinearAlgebra):

> Digits:=100: interface(displayprecision=5):

Parameter Assignment:

> A:=1: d:=1/10: s:=1:

> b1:=2/100: b2:=3/100: w2:=1/2: w1:=1-w2: b:=w1*b1+w2*b2: b;

The dynamic system of interest:

> xdot:=diff(x(t),t)=A*(x(t))^(1/2)-d*x(t)-c(t);

> cdot:=diff(c(t),t)=s*(A/2*(x(t))^(-1/2)-d-q(t))

> qdot:=diff(q(t),t)=-(q(t)-b1)*(q(t)-b2)+(q(t)-b)*rhs(cdot)/rhs(xdot);

Computing the "stationary" state (xs,cs,qs):

> xd:=eval(rhs(xdot),x(t)=x, c(t)=c, q(t)=q):

> cd:=eval(rhs(cdot),x(t)=x, c(t)=c, q(t)=q):

> qd:=eval(rhs(qdot),x(t)=x, c(t)=c, q(t)=q):

> qs:=b: xs:=fsolve(eval(cd,q=qs),x): cs:=fsolve(eval(xd,x=xs),c): ss:=evalf([xs,cs,qs]);

 > R:=b;

 The Transformed Dynamic System

> sys := convert([xdot,cdot,qdot],rational):

> PDEtools[dchange](x(t)=A^2/4/(r(t)+d)^(2),c(t)=A^2/2/(r(t)+d)-d*A^2/4/(r(t)+d)^2-u(t),q(t)=r(t)-v(t)/s,sys,[u(t),v(t),r(t)]):
simplify(%) assuming u(t)>0 and v(t)>0 and r(t)>0:
newsys:= expand(solve(%,diff(u(t),t),diff(v(t),t),diff(r(t),t)));

 > eval(newsys, r(t) = R):
sys2D:= select(has,%, diff);

 Eigenvalues of the System

> M:= [eval(rhs(newsys[2]),u(t)=u,v(t)=v,r(t)=r),
eval(rhs(newsys[3]),u(t)=u,v(t)=v,r(t)=r),
eval(rhs(newsys[1]),u(t)=u,v(t)=v,r(t)=r)]:

> us:=1e-20: vs:=1e-20: rs:=R:
J:= eval(VectorCalculus[Jacobian](M,[u,v,r]),u=us, v=vs, r=rs);

 > LinearAlgebra[CharacteristicPolynomial](J,x):

> E,V:= LinearAlgebra[Eigenvectors](J):
Re(E); Re(V):

Gives one negative eigenvalue and two positive ones.

If I set the stationary value of r (and consequently q) to something other than b, I get one very large eigenvalue and one very small one. Analytically: one is zero, the other is infinite. This led me to rule out all candidate stationary states except r=b. When r=b, it is possible that the terms (r-b)/u and v/u in the jacobian, both of the form 0/0, might tend to something finite. It is this possibility that I investigate here.

A first look at the transformed system

> DEplot(sys2D,[u(t),v(t)], t=-1..1, u=-0.1..0.1, v=-0.1..0.1,arrows=medium);

Computing the nullclines (I learned these tricks from Robert Israel)

> up := subs(sys2D, u(t)=u, v(t)=v, diff(u(t),t));
   vp := subs(sys2D, u(t)=u, v(t)=v, diff(v(t),t)); 

> Uu := solve(up, v);

> Uv := solve(vp, v);

> u1 := fsolve(Uu=abs(Uv[1]),u,avoid=u=0); v1:=eval(Uu,u=u1);

Plotting the Phase Diagram with the NullClines

> p1 := DEplot(sys2D,[u(t),v(t)],t=-1..1,u=-0.1 .. 0.1,v=-0.002..0.002, arrows=medium):

> p2 := plot([Uu,Uv], u=-0.1 .. 0.1, colour=[brown,blue], thickness=3):

> display(p1,p2);

Zooming on the critical point

> p1 := DEplot(sys2D,[u(t),v(t)],t=-1..1, u=-0.015 .. 0.01, v = -0.001 .. 0.001, arrows=medium):

> p2 := plot([Uu,Uv], u=-0.015 .. 0.01, colour=[brown,blue], thickness=3):

> display(p1,p2);

 The critical point can be approached from the north-east quadrant only

 Simulating the 3-D Transformed system

> T := 100:

> INI := u(T)=1e-15, v(T)=1e-15, r(T)=b:

> SYS := udot, vdot, rdot:

> VAR := u(t), v(t), r(t):

> Digits:=100: interface(displayprecision=5):

> SOL := dsolve(SYS, INI, VAR, type=numeric, range=0..T, abserr=1e-25, output=listprocedure);

Reverting back from the transformed system (u,v,r) to the original system in (x,c,q)

> r0:=rhs(SOL[2](0)); u0:=rhs(SOL[3](0)); v0:=rhs(SOL[4](0));

> X := (u,v,r)-> A^2/4/(r+d)^(2):
   C := (u,v,r)-> A^2/2/(r+d)-d*A^2/4/(r+d)^2-u:
   Q := (u,v,r)-> r-v/s:

Plotting the original system

> x := t-> X(rhs(SOL[3](t)),rhs(SOL[4](t)),rhs(SOL[2](t))):

> c := t-> C(rhs(SOL[3](t)),rhs(SOL[4](t)),rhs(SOL[2](t))):

> q := t-> Q(rhs(SOL[3](t)),rhs(SOL[4](t)),rhs(SOL[2](t))):

> px := plot(x(t), t=0..T): display(px);

> pc := plot(c(t), t=0..T): display(pc);

> pq := plot(q(t), t=0..T): display(pq);

Unfortunately, couldn't plot the implicit relation among the variables. To be fixed.

> pxq := implicitplot(q(t),x(t), q=q(0)..q(T), x=x(0)..x(T)): display(pxq): #THIS IMPLICITPLOT FAILS
pxq := implicitplot3d(t,q(t),x(t), t=0..T, q=q(0)..q(T), x=x(0)..x(T)): display(pxq, axes=boxed): #ALSO FAILS

Error, (in plots/implicitplot) invalid input: the following extra unknowns were found in the input expression: t

Error, (in plots:-display) expecting plot structures but received: pxq

Plotting the transformed system

> pu := odeplot(SOL, [t,u(t)], 0..T): display(pu);

> pv := odeplot(SOL, [t,v(t)], 0..T): display(pv);

> pr := odeplot(SOL, [t,r(t)], 0..T): display(pr);

> puv := odeplot(SOL, [u(t),v(t)], 0..T): display(puv);

> pur := odeplot(SOL, [u(t),r(t)], 0..T): display(pur);

> pvr := odeplot(SOL, [v(t),r(t)], 0..T): display(pvr);

 A 3-D plot of the (u,v,r) stable path

> p3D := odeplot(SOL, [u(t),v(t),r(t)], 0..T, colour=black, thickness=3): display(p3D, axes=boxed);

This post was generated using the MaplePrimes File Manager

View 9249_mapleprimes08.mw on MapleNet or Download 9249_mapleprimes08.mw
View file details