Timeline for NDSolve with vectors
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
8 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 6, 2016 at 6:37 | comment | added | BoLe | The drag term should be negative as it opposes the motion. I think the stiffness of system stems from here. | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 21:37 | comment | added | Steve | Nice. I'll have to study the answer some more though... Thanks! | |
| Nov 12, 2012 at 21:36 | vote | accept | Steve | ||
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:45 | comment | added | Jens | Yes, I guess one could change the function argument from p0_ to {p0x_, p0y_, p0z_} etc., but it seems that even then the second-order differential equation is too hard to recognize as vectorial. So your approach is just the safest, I think. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:43 | comment | added | Sjoerd C. de Vries | @jens Vector equations seem to work only if the initial conditions are specified as a scalar constant, not a vector constant. Replace in the doc example the zero in the first example by {0,0,0,0} (which would seem to make more sense) and it fails. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:27 | comment | added | Sjoerd C. de Vries | @jens You're right. I suppose the problem here lies in the assignments with p0 and v0, which aren't explicitly vectors, right? | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 22:04 | comment | added | Jens | This is also how I would have done it, but it should probably be pointed out that Mathematica does know how to deal with vector functions in some cases. See e.g. this answer. | |
| Nov 11, 2012 at 20:27 | history | answered | Sjoerd C. de Vries | CC BY-SA 3.0 |