
Citation: Jean A. Rondal. Down syndrome: A curative prospect?[J]. AIMS Neuroscience, 2020, 7(2): 168-193. doi: 10.3934/Neuroscience.2020012
[1] | Premyuda Dechboon, Abubakar Adamu, Poom Kumam . A generalized Halpern-type forward-backward splitting algorithm for solving variational inclusion problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(5): 11037-11056. doi: 10.3934/math.2023559 |
[2] | Yali Zhao, Qixin Dong, Xiaoqing Huang . A self-adaptive viscosity-type inertial algorithm for common solutions of generalized split variational inclusion and paramonotone equilibrium problem. AIMS Mathematics, 2025, 10(2): 4504-4523. doi: 10.3934/math.2025208 |
[3] | Meiying Wang, Luoyi Shi, Cuijuan Guo . An inertial iterative method for solving split equality problem in Banach spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 17628-17646. doi: 10.3934/math.2022971 |
[4] | Anjali, Seema Mehra, Renu Chugh, Salma Haque, Nabil Mlaiki . Iterative algorithm for solving monotone inclusion and fixed point problem of a finite family of demimetric mappings. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(8): 19334-19352. doi: 10.3934/math.2023986 |
[5] | Wenlong Sun, Gang Lu, Yuanfeng Jin, Choonkil Park . Self-adaptive algorithms for the split problem of the quasi-pseudocontractive operators in Hilbert spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(5): 8715-8732. doi: 10.3934/math.2022487 |
[6] | Meiying Wang, Luoyi Shi . A new self-adaptive inertial algorithm with $ W $-mapping for solving split feasibility problem in Banach spaces. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(10): 18767-18783. doi: 10.3934/math.20221032 |
[7] | Yasir Arfat, Supak Phiangsungnoen, Poom Kumam, Muhammad Aqeel Ahmad Khan, Jamshad Ahmad . Some variant of Tseng splitting method with accelerated Visco-Cesaro means for monotone inclusion problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2023, 8(10): 24590-24608. doi: 10.3934/math.20231254 |
[8] | Hasanen A. Hammad, Habib ur Rehman, Manuel De la Sen . Accelerated modified inertial Mann and viscosity algorithms to find a fixed point of $ \alpha - $inverse strongly monotone operators. AIMS Mathematics, 2021, 6(8): 9000-9019. doi: 10.3934/math.2021522 |
[9] | Zheng Zhou, Bing Tan, Songxiao Li . Two self-adaptive inertial projection algorithms for solving split variational inclusion problems. AIMS Mathematics, 2022, 7(4): 4960-4973. doi: 10.3934/math.2022276 |
[10] | Ziqi Zhu, Kaiye Zheng, Shenghua Wang . A new double inertial subgradient extragradient method for solving a non-monotone variational inequality problem in Hilbert space. AIMS Mathematics, 2024, 9(8): 20956-20975. doi: 10.3934/math.20241020 |
The development of fractional calculus (FC) [1] was traced from a letter dated September 30, 1695, written by L' Hospital to Leibniz regarding the half derivative of the linear function p(x)=x. Leibniz response was "An apparent paradox, from which one-day useful consequences will be drawn". Nowadays, FC is identified as the most effective tool for the modelling of physical phenomena not only in mathematics but also in other branches of sciences, engineering, economics, finance, etc. FC has been identified as one of the fastest-growing research areas in the last few decades. Also, FDEs have played a significant role because of their huge range of uses. Several problems in biology, physics, chemistry, applied science and engineering are modelled by FDEs [2,3,4,5,6,7]. Many research articles were developed to investigate the theory and solutions of FDEs [8,9]. Also, many researchers [10,11,12] developed the existence and uniqueness criteria of the IVP if FDEs of fractional order. The most common and oldest derivatives are Riemann Liouville (RL) and Caputo. In this research article, we are taking the derivative in the Caputo frame as it has many advantages for dealing with the IVP of FDEs:
CDβx+0y=p(x,y),supplementaryconditiony(x0)=y0,andx∈(x0,xend], | (1.1) |
where CDβx+0 indicates the Caputo fractional order derivative (CFOD) of variable order β such that β∈(0,1].
In the survey, we found that most of the non-linear IVP of FDEs don't have any analytic method for finding the solutions [13], therefore numerical technique must be used for such cases. Some of the analytic and numerical methods for solving FDEs consists of Adomian decomposition method (ADM) [14], variational iteration method (VIM) [15], fractional differential transform scheme [16], fractional finite difference scheme [17], fractional Adams scheme [8], homotopy perturbation scheme [18], spectral collocation scheme [19], extrapolation method [20], homotopy analysis scheme [21], and many others. Out of these methods, the ADM and the VIM are the most well-known methods for solving the FDEs for providing instant and visible symbolic terms of numerical solutions. Moreover, the numerical scheme described in the literature [22,23,24] have some drawbacks in the RL derivative sense. In this work, we suggest novel schemes to reduce the drawback.
Nowadays, the IVP of FDEs used as a weapon to solve the various mathematical models, dynamical models, and many others. This article establishes two fractional numerical algorithms for the IVP of FDEs of order β∈(0,1]. These schemes are fractional third-order RK3 scheme and fractional SSRK3 scheme, which are based on classical third-order RK3 scheme [25,26,27,28] and classical SSRK3 scheme, respectively. In [29], Muhammad et al. developed a two-stage generalized Rk2 scheme of second order in CFOD sense. In [30], Kumar et al. established two numerical schemes, which are fractional quadratic midpoint scheme and fractional cubic Heun scheme for an IVP of FDEs (1.1). Also, in the year 2016, Tong et al. [31] suggested numerical schemes, which are fractional EM and fractional IEM, to demonstrate the numerical solution of the IVP of FDEs (1.1). These all referred works motivate us to establish more efficient schemes to solve the IVP of FDE in the CFOD sense. Also, our main aim is to show, based on a few application models and a few concrete examples, that FDEs may model the physical problem more efficiently than the ODEs. In recent decades, many research articles have been devoted for numerical iterative scheme [32,33,34,35] of IVP of FDEs. Still, there are few non-linear IVP of FDEs in the Riemann derivative sense where the approximation technique does not work. In our work, we proposed two efficient cubic techniques, which is effectively providing the approximate solution of linear as well as non-linear IVP of FDEs (1.1) of order β where β∈(0,1]. Both schemes, fractional RK3, and fractional SSRK3 are cubic convergence in which the SSRK3 scheme is more stable and faster than all other cubic schemes for IVP of FDEs. This paper also provides the comparative and convergence analysis of our suggested technique with fractional EM and fractional IEM, which have linear and quadratic convergence, respectively. We organize this work as follows:
● In Section 2, we introduce mathematical preliminaries, some basic definitions, and the result of FC.
● In Section 3, we proposed our and suggested methodology and their convergence analysis.
● In Section 4, we provide numerical solutions of illustrated examples of IVP of FDEs using suggested schemes.
● In Section 5, we provide the numerical simulation of two real-world application models, which are the fractional World Population Growth (WPG) model and Nuclear Decay (ND) model using suggested schemes.
● In Section 6, we report our conclusion of the proposed scheme with some crucial facts.
This section is devoted to the preliminary concepts of FC that we need in our study. So, we present some definitions and some properties of FC [36,37,38,39,40,41].
Definition 2.1. For arbitrary β>0 and a piecewise integrable function κ:[a,b]→R, the fractional left and right RL integral of order β are defined by
RLIβa+κ(s)=1Γ(β)∫sa(s−p)β−1κ(p)dp,s>a,andRLIβb−κ(s)=1Γ(β)∫bs(p−s)β−1κ(p)dp,s<b, |
respectively. Here the notation Γ signify the Gamma function.
Definition 2.2. For arbitrary β>0 and a piecewise integrable function κ:[a,b]→R, the fractional left and right RL derivative of order β are defined by
RLDβa+κ(s)=1Γ(n−β)dndsn∫sa(s−p)n−β−1κ(p)dp,s>a,andRLDβb−κ(s)=(−1)nΓ(n−β)dndsn∫bs(p−s)n−β−1κ(p)dp,s<b, |
respectively, where n−1<β<n, n∈N. If 0<β<1, then the fractional left and right RL derivative are
RLDβa+κ(s)=1Γ(1−β)dds∫sa(s−p)−βκ(p)dp,s>a, |
and
RLDβb−κ(s)=−1Γ(1−β)dds∫bs(p−s)−βκ(p)dp,s<b, |
respectively.
Definition 2.3. For arbitrary β>0 and a piecewise integrable function κ:[a,b]→R, the fractional left and right Caputo derivative of order β are defined by
CDβa+κ(s)=1Γ(n−β)∫sa(s−p)n−β−1κn(p)dp,s>a,andCDβb−κ(s)=(−1)nΓ(n−β)∫bs(p−s)n−β−1κn(p)dp,s<b, |
respectively, where n−1<β<n, n∈N. If we take 0<β<1, then the fractional left and right Caputo derivative are
CDβa+κ(s)=1Γ(1−β)∫sa(s−p)−βκ′(p)dp,s>a,andCDβb−κ(s)=−1Γ(1−β)∫bs(p−s)−βκ′(p)dp,s<b, |
respectively.
The relation between the fractional RL derivative and fractional Caputo derivative is,
CDβa+κ(s)=RLDβa+κ(s)−n−1∑k=0κk(a)(s−a)k−βΓ(k−β+1),andCDβb−κ(s)=RLDβb−κ(s)−n−1∑k=0κk(b)(b−s)k−βΓ(k−β+1), |
where n−1<β<n,n∈N.
Definition 2.4. The one parameter Mittag-Leffler function (Eβ) which was introduced by Mittag-Leffler, is defined as:
Eβ(s)=∞∑n=0snΓ(βn+1),s∈C,β∈C,Re(β)>0. |
The two parameter Mittag-Leffler function (Eβ,γ) which was first appeared in a paper by Wiman [42], is defined as:
Eβ,γ(s)=∞∑n=0snΓ(βn+γ),s∈C,β∈C,γ∈C,Re(β)>0,Re(γ)>0. |
Lemma 2.1. [36,37] If Re(β)>0, Re(γ)>0 and p(x)∈Ls[a,b], where 0≤s≤∞, then the equations
RLIβa+RLIγa+p=RLIβ+γa+p,andRLIβb−RLIγb−p=RLIβ+γb−p, | (2.1) |
holds almost everywhere for x∈[a,b]. If β+γ>1, then the expression (2.1) holds at any point on x∈[a,b].
Lemma 2.2. [43] If p(x)∈Cs[a,b], a<b and s∈N. Moreover, If β,γ>0 be such that, ∃ some m∈N with m≤s and β,β+γ∈[m−1,m]. Then,
CDβa+CDγa+p=CDβ+γa+p. |
Theorem 2.1. (Existence of IVP of FDE) [31] Let p(x,y) be a function that hold the condition p(x0,y(x0))=0 and also the p(x,y) is continuous on the domain R:0≤x−x0≤k1, |y−y0|≤k2, then FDEs:
CDβx+0y=p(x,y),supplementaryconditiony(x0)=y0andx∈(x0,xend], | (2.2) |
has at least one solution in the interval 0≤x−x0≤λ with λ=min{k1,k2M} and max(x,y)∈RCD1−βa+p(x,y)<M.
Theorem 2.2. (Uniqueness of IVP of FDE) [31] By following the Theorem 2.1, and if px(x,u) holds the condition of Lipschitz in the variable u with Lipschitz constant 0<L,
|px(x,y1)−px(x,y2)|≤L|y1−y2|, |
then the FDEs (2.2) have unique solution.
Let us assume, an IVP of FDE (1.1) in CFOD frame of variable order β. By following the Lemma 2.2, we apply a suitable analogous operation so that the FDE (1.1) will become the classical ODE, and we will get the CFOD of order (1−β). After that, the revised IVP of FDE:
y′=CD1−βx+0p(x,y),supplementaryconditiony(x0)=y0,andx∈(x0,xend]. | (3.1) |
In order to obtain the efficient and appropriate approximate solution of the IVP of FDEs (3.1), we proposed two effective and fast numerical scheme for IVP of FDEs which are fractional RK3 [25,26,27,28] and fractional SSRK3 [44,45,46]. These two fractional numerical scheme is more accurate and fast compared to all other linear and quadratic convergence scheme for IVP of FDEs (1.1). Below is our fractional RK3 scheme.
To establish the numerical solution of the IVP of fractional order differential equation (3.1) in the interval [a,b], we propose the algorithm fractional RK3 scheme [25,26,27,28], which is same as classical RK3 scheme for first order IVP of ODE. For approximating the solution, we consider (xk,yk) as our set points, and we consider these points in such a way that the mesh is equally distributed in the interval [a,b] where we set x0=a and xend=b. This idea will be good by selecting a non-negative integer, say n, and assuming the mesh points. So, the explicit fractional RK3 scheme is given by the Butcher tableau:
012121−12162316 |
Here is the algorithm of fractional RK3 scheme of FDE (3.1):
{xk=x0+khforeachk=0,1,2,…,nh=xk+1−xk,(stepsize)yk+1=yk+h6(l1+4l2+l3),wherel1=CD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk,l2=CD1−βx+0p(x+h2,yk+h2l1)|x=xk,l3=CD1−βx+0p(x+h,yk−hl1+2hl2)|x=xk. |
This algorithm is a cubic convergence scheme and with the help of Matlab, it is proven to be an efficient and more accurate in the comparison of linear and quadratic convergence scheme.
Before proceeding the convergence of RK3 scheme, first we are going to state some relevant result and lemmas.
Lemma 3.1. [31] Let px(x,u) be a function that satisfy the condition of Lipschitz in the unknown variable y, with Lipschitz constant 0<A,
|px(x,y1)−px(x,y2)|≤A|y1−y2|, |
and also hold the conditions of Theorem 2.1, also consider P(x,y)=CD1−βx+0p(x,y) holds the condition of Lipschitz in the unknown variable y, with another Lipschitz constant 0<M,
|P(x,y1)−P(x,y2)|≤M|y1−y2|. |
Lemma 3.2. Consider the function P(x,y) satisfy the Lipschitz condition for the unknown variable y and if the conditions of Theorem 2.1 hold, then
μ(x,y)=16P(x,y)+23P(x+h2,y+h2P(x,y))+16P(x+h,y−hP(x,y)+2hP(x+h2,y+h2P(x,y))) | (3.2) |
will always fulfill the condition of Lipschitz in the unknown variable y.
Proof.
|μ(x,y1)−μ(x,y2)|≤16|P(x,y1)−P(x,y2)|+23|P(x+h2,y1+h2P(x,y1))−P(x+h2,y2+h2P(x,y2))|+16|P(x+h,y1−hP(x,y1)+2hP(x+h2,y1+h2P(x,y1)))−P(x+h,y2−hP(x,y2)+2hP(x+h2,y2+h2P(x,y2)))|≤M|y1−y2|+5hM26|y1−y2|+h2M36|y1−y2|[UsingLemma3]=M(1+5hM6+h2M26)|y1−y2|=Lμ|y1−y2|. |
Therefore, |μ(x,y1)−μ(x,y2)|≤Lμ|y1−y2|, where Lμ=M(1+5hM6+h2M26).
Theorem 3.1. Let us assume the function px(x,u) satisfy the condition of Lipschitz in the unknown variable y, with Lipschitz constant 0<L,
|px(x,y1)−px(x,y2)|≤L|y1−y2|, |
and y(x) be the unique solution of IVP of FDEs (3.1). Also let us assume yk be the approximate solution which is generated by RK3 scheme for non-negative integer n. Then, for every k=0,1,2,…n,
y(xk)−yk=O(h3). |
Proof. First we are taking our fractional RK3 iterative scheme which is based on yk=y(xk), then we can write
ˉyk+1=y(xk)+h6[CD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk+4CD1−βx+0p(x+h2,yk+h2CD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk)|x=xk+CD1−βx+0p(x+h,yk−hCD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk+2hCD1−βx+0p(x+h2,yk+h2CD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk)|x=xk)|x=xk]. |
Consider, P(x,y)=CD1−βx+0p(x,y), then the above expression will become,
ˉyk+1=y(xk)+h6[P(xk,yk)+4P(xk+h2,yk+h2y′(xk))+P(xk+h,yk−hy′(xk)+2hP(xk+h2,yk+h2y′(xk)))]=y(xk)+h6P(xk,yk)+2h3[P(xk,yk)+(h2Px(xk,yk)+h2Py(xk,yk)y′(xk))+12!((h2)2Pxx(xk,yk)+h22y′(xk)Pxy(xk,yk)+(h2)2(y′(xk))2Pyy(xk,yk))+O(h3)]+h6[P(xk,yk)+{hPx(xk,yk)+h(P(xk,yk)+hPx(xk,yk)+hy′(xk)Py(xk,yk)+O(h2))Py(xk,yk)}+h22!{Pxx(xk,yk)+2Pxy(xk,yk)(y′(xk)+O(h))+Pyy(xk,yk)(y′(xk)+O(h))2}+h33!{Pxxx(ξ,η)+3(P(xk,yk)+O(h))Pxxy(ξ,η)+3(P(xk,yk)+O(h))2Pxyy(ξ,η)+(P(xk,yk)+O(h))3Pyyy(ξ,η)}]=y(xk)+hy′(xk)+h22![Px(xk,yk)+y′(xk)Py(xk,yk)]+h33![Pxx(xk,yk)+2y′(xk)Pxy(xk,yk)+Pyy(xk,yk)(y′(xk))2+Px(xk,yk)Py(xk,yk)+y′(xk)(Py(xk,yk))2]+O(h4)=y(xk)+hy′(xk)+h22!y"(xk)+h33!y"′(xk)+O(h4). | (3.3) |
With the help of Taylor's series, we can write the exact form of the solution,
y(xk+1)=y(xk)+hy′(xk)+h22!y"(xk)+h33!y"′(xk)+h44!y""(xk)+… | (3.4) |
By Eqs (3.3) and (3.4), we get |y(xk+1)−ˉyk+1|=O(h4).
So,|y(xk+1)−ˉyk+1|≤Ch4. |
Taking,
μ(x,y)=16P(x,y)+23P(x+h2,y+h2P(x,y))+16P(x+h,y−hP(x,y)+2hP(x+h2,y+h2P(x,y))). |
From the above Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we have
|ˉyk+1−yk+1|≤|y(xk)−yk|+h|μ(xk,y(xk))−μ(xk,yk)|≤(hLμ+1)|y(xk)−yk| |
Therefore,
|y(xk+1)−yk+1|≤|y(xk+1)−ˉyk+1|+|ˉyk+1−yk+1|≤Ch4+(hLμ+1)|y(xk)−yk|. |
So, error estimation will be, |ϵk+1|=(hLμ+1)|ϵk|+Ch4.
Using recursion relation,
|ϵk|≤(hLμ+1)k|ϵ0|+Ch3Lμ[(hLμ+1)k−1]. |
Since, xk−x0=khandϵ0=0then,(hLμ+1)k≤ekhLμ=fμ.
So, we have |ϵk|≤Ch3Lμ(fμ−1), where Lμ=M(1+5hM6+h2M26)[ByLemma3.2]
Therefore, |y(xk)−yk|=O(h3).
This indicates that our suggested scheme fractional RK3 has a cubic convergence rate.
Here, we proposed another fractional third-order Runge-Kutta scheme which is more stable and renamed as fractional strong stability preserving third-order Runge Kutta (SSRK3) scheme. So, the explicit fractional SSRK3 scheme is given by the Butcher tableau:
011121614161623 |
Here is the algorithm of fractional SSRK3 scheme of IVP of FDE (3.1):
{xk=x0+khforeachk=0,1,2,…,nh=xk+1−xk,(stepsize)yk+1=yk+h6(p1+p2+4p3),wherep1=CD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk,p2=CD1−βx+0p(x+h,yk+hp1)|x=xk,p3=CD1−βx+0p(x+h2,yk+h4p1+h4p2)|x=xk. |
This algorithm is also a cubic convergence scheme that is more stable and accurate than the fractional RK3 scheme and faster in comparing other linear and quadratic convergence schemes for IVP of FDEs.
Lemma 3.3. Consider the function P(x,y) satisfy the Lipschitz condition for the unknown variable y and if the conditions of Theorem 2.1 hold, then
λ(x,y)=16P(x,y)+16P(x+h,y+hP(x,y))+23P(x+h2,y+h4P(x,y)+h4P(x+h,y+hP(x,y))) | (3.5) |
will always fulfill the condition of Lipschitz in the unknown variable y.
Proof.
|λ(x,y1)−λ(x,y2)|≤16|P(x,y1)−P(x,y2)|+16|P(x+h,y1+hP(x,y1))−P(x+h,y2+hP(x,y2))|+23|P(x+h2,y1+h4P(x,y1)+h4P(x+h,y1+P(x,y1)))−P(x+h2,y2+h4hP(x,y2)+h4P(x+h,y2+hP(x,y2)))|≤M|y1−y2|+hM23|y1−y2|+h2M36|y1−y2|[UsingLemma3]=M(1+hM3+h2M26)|y1−y2|=Lλ|y1−y2|, |
Therefore, |λ(x,y1)−λ(x,y2)|≤Lλ|y1−y2|, where Lλ=M(1+hM3+h2M26).
Theorem 3.2. Let us assume the function px(x,u) satisfy the condition of Lipschitz in the unknown variable y, with Lipschitz constant 0<L,
|px(x,y1)−px(x,y2)|≤L|y1−y2|, |
and y(x) be the unique solution of IVP of FDEs (3.1). Also, let us assume yk be the approximate solution which is generated by third order strong stability preserving Runge Kutta scheme for non-negative integer n. Then, for every k=0,1,2,…n,
y(xk)−yk=O(h3). |
Proof. First we are taking our fractional SSRK3 iterative scheme which depend on yk=y(xk), then we can write
ˉyk+1=y(xk)+h6[CD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk+CD1−βx+0p(x+h,yk+hCD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk)|x=xk+4CD1−βx+0p(x+h2,yk+h4CD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk+h4CD1−βx+0p(x+h,yk+hCD1−βx+0p(x,yk)|x=xk)|x=xk)|x=xk] |
Consider, P(x,y)=CD1−βx+0p(x,y), then the above expression will become,
ˉyk+1=y(xk)+h6[P(xk,yk)+P(xk+h,yk+hy′(xk))+4P(xk+h2,yk+h4y′(xk)+h4P(xk+h,yk+hy′(xk)))]=y(xk)+h6P(xk,yk)+h6[P(xk,yk)+{hPx(xk,yk)+hPy(xk,yk)y′(xk)}+12!{h2Pxx(xk,yk)+2h2y′(xk)Pxy(xk,yk)+h2(y′(xk))2Pyy(xk,yk)}+O(h3)]+2h3[P(xk,yk)+{h2Px(xk,yk)+h4(2P(xk,yk)+hPx(xk,yk)+hy′(xk)Py(xk,yk)+O(h2))Py(xk,yk)}+12!{h24Pxx(xk,yk)+h24Pxy(xk,yk)(2y′(xk)+O(h))+h216Pyy(xk,yk)(2y′(xk)+O(h))2}+13!{h38Pxxx(ξ,η)+3h316(2y′(xk)+O(h))Pxxy(ξ,η)+3h332(2y′(xk)+O(h))2Pxyy(ξ,η)+h364(P(xk,yk)+O(h))3Pyyy(ξ,η)}]=y(xk)+hy′(xk)+h22![Px(xk,yk)+y′(xk)Py(xk,yk)]+h33![Pxx(xk,yk)+2y′(xk)Pxy(xk,yk)+Pyy(xk,yk)(y′(xk))2+Px(xk,yk)Py(xk,yk)+y′(xk)(Py(xk,yk))2]+O(h4)=y(xk)+hy′(xk)+h22!y"(xk)+h33!y"′(xk)+O(h4). | (3.6) |
With the help of Taylor's series, we can write the exact form of the solution,
y(xk+1)=y(xk)+hy′(xk)+h22!y"(xk)+h33!y"′(xk)+h44!y""(xk)+… | (3.7) |
By Eqs (3.6) and (3.7), we get |y(xk+1)−ˉyk+1|=O(h4).
So,|y(xk+1)−ˉyk+1|≤Ch4. |
Taking,
λ(x,y)=16P(x,y)+16P(x+h,y+hP(x,y))+23P(x+h2,y+h4P(x,y)+h4P(x+h,y+hP(x,y))). |
From the above Lemmas 3.1 and 3.2, we have
|ˉyk+1−yk+1|≤|y(xk)−yk|+h|λ(xk,y(xk))−λ(xk,yk)|≤(hLλ+1)|y(xk)−yk| |
Therefore,
|y(xk+1)−yk+1|≤|y(xk+1)−ˉyk+1|+|ˉyk+1−yk+1|≤Ch4+(hLλ+1)|y(xk)−yk|. |
So, error estimation will be, |ϵk+1|=(hLλ+1)|ϵk|+Ch4.
Using recursion relation,
|ϵk|≤(hLλ+1)k|ϵ0|+Ch3Lλ[(hLλ+1)k−1]. |
Since, xk−x0=khandϵ0=0then,(hLλ+1)k≤ekhLλ=fλ.
So, we have |ϵk|≤Ch3Lλ(fλ−1), where Lλ=M(1+hM3+h2M26).[ByLemma3.3]
Therefore, |y(xk)−yk|=O(h3).
This indicates that our suggested scheme fractional SSRK3 has a cubic convergence rate.
In this section, we present two examples of IVP of FDEs. We provide the numerical solution using our suggested scheme by comparing it with the existing fractional EM and fractional IEM using Matlab. In this illustrated example, the first example is linear IVP of FDE and the second example is non-linear IVP of FDE.
Example 4.1. [47] Consider the following linear IVP of FDE:
CDβ0+y=−y,0.1<x≤1,withsuplementarycondition,y(0.1)=Eβ((−0.1)β). | (4.1) |
The analytic solution of FDE (4.1) is,
y(x)=Eβ(−xβ). |
For β=12 and with the help of Matlab, by following our proposed scheme with step size h=110, the analytic and approximate solution of the FDE (4.1) is graphically shown in Figure 1 and tabulated in the Tables 1 and 2. In addition to this, the absolute error graph is shown in the Figure 2. Also, the order of convergence is tabulated in Table 3 and graphically shown in Figure 3.
EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | yRK3 | |yexact−yRK3| |
1/10 | 0.72358 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 |
2/10 | 0.64379 | 0.61752 | 0.02626 | 0.63966 | 0.00413 | 0.64372 | 0.00007 |
3/10 | 0.59202 | 0.55575 | 0.03627 | 0.58687 | 0.00515 | 0.59194 | 0.00008 |
4/10 | 0.55361 | 0.51194 | 0.04166 | 0.54805 | 0.00556 | 0.55353 | 0.00008 |
5/10 | 0.52316 | 0.47810 | 0.04506 | 0.51739 | 0.00577 | 0.52308 | 0.00008 |
6/10 | 0.49802 | 0.45062 | 0.04740 | 0.49213 | 0.00589 | 0.49794 | 0.00008 |
7/10 | 0.47670 | 0.42759 | 0.04911 | 0.47073 | 0.00597 | 0.47662 | 0.00008 |
8/10 | 0.45825 | 0.40783 | 0.05042 | 0.45223 | 0.00602 | 0.45817 | 0.00008 |
9/10 | 0.44202 | 0.39057 | 0.05145 | 0.43596 | 0.00606 | 0.44194 | 0.00008 |
1 | 0.42758 | 0.37530 | 0.05228 | 0.42150 | 0.00608 | 0.42750 | 0.00008 |
EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | ySSRK3 | |yexact−ySSRK3| |
1/10 | 0.72358 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 |
2/10 | 0.64379 | 0.61752 | 0.02626 | 0.63966 | 0.00413 | 0.64372 | 0.00007 |
3/10 | 0.59202 | 0.55575 | 0.03627 | 0.58687 | 0.00515 | 0.59194 | 0.00008 |
4/10 | 0.55361 | 0.51194 | 0.04166 | 0.54805 | 0.00556 | 0.55353 | 0.00008 |
5/10 | 0.52316 | 0.47810 | 0.04506 | 0.51739 | 0.00577 | 0.52308 | 0.00008 |
6/10 | 0.49802 | 0.45062 | 0.04740 | 0.49213 | 0.00589 | 0.49794 | 0.00008 |
7/10 | 0.47670 | 0.42759 | 0.04911 | 0.47073 | 0.00597 | 0.47662 | 0.00008 |
8/10 | 0.45825 | 0.40783 | 0.05042 | 0.45223 | 0.00602 | 0.45817 | 0.00008 |
9/10 | 0.44202 | 0.39057 | 0.05145 | 0.43596 | 0.00606 | 0.44194 | 0.00008 |
1 | 0.42758 | 0.37530 | 0.05228 | 0.42150 | 0.00608 | 0.42750 | 0.00008 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | SSRK3 | |||||
n | Error | Order | Error | Oredr | Error | Order | Error | Order |
10 | 0.046549 | --- | 0.004972 | --- | 0.000056 | --- | 0.000056 | --- |
20 | 0.022073 | 1.0764 | 0.001285 | 1.9523 | 0.000004 | 2.7265 | 0.000004 | 2.7265 |
40 | 0.010719 | 1.0422 | 0.000324 | 1.9859 | 0.000000 | 2.9098 | 0.000000 | 2.9098 |
80 | 0.005278 | 1.0219 | 0.000081 | 1.9963 | 0.000000 | 2.9750 | 0.000000 | 2.9750 |
160 | 0.002619 | 1.0111 | 0.000020 | 1.9991 | 0.000000 | 2.9935 | 0.000000 | 2.9935 |
320 | 0.001304 | 1.0056 | 0.000005 | 1.9998 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 |
640 | 0.000651 | 1.0028 | 0.000001 | 1.9999 | 0.000000 | 2.9993 | 0.000000 | 2.9993 |
1280 | 0.000325 | 1.0014 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 3.0077 | 0.000000 | 3.0077 |
2560 | 0.000162 | 1.0007 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 2.9533 | 0.000000 | 2.9533 |
5120 | 0.000081 | 1.0004 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 3.0559 | 0.000000 | 3.0559 |
Example 4.2. Consider the non-linear IVP of FDE:
CDβ1+y=(35√π32)y67,1<x≤2,withsuplementarycondition,y(1)=1. | (4.2) |
The analytic solution of FDE (4.2) is,
y(x)=x3.5. |
For β=12 and with the help of Matlab, by following our proposed scheme with step size h=110, the analytic and approximate solution of the FDE (4.2) is graphically shown in Figure 4 and tabulated in the Tables 4 and 5. In addition to this, the absolute error graph is shown in the Figure 5. Also, the order of convergence is tabulated in Table 6 and graphically shown in Figure 6.
EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | yRK3 | |yexact−yRK3| |
1 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 |
11/10 | 1.39596 | 1.35000 | 0.04596 | 1.39184 | 0.00413 | 1.39567 | 0.00029 |
12/10 | 1.89293 | 1.78367 | 0.10925 | 1.88345 | 0.00948 | 1.89229 | 0.00064 |
13/10 | 2.50497 | 2.31282 | 0.19214 | 2.48883 | 0.01614 | 2.50391 | 0.00106 |
14/10 | 3.24674 | 2.94987 | 0.29688 | 3.22256 | 0.02418 | 3.24521 | 0.00153 |
15/10 | 4.13351 | 3.70782 | 0.42569 | 4.09983 | 0.03369 | 4.13144 | 0.00208 |
16/10 | 5.18108 | 4.60027 | 0.58081 | 5.13635 | 0.04473 | 5.17839 | 0.00269 |
17/10 | 6.40577 | 5.64135 | 0.76442 | 6.34839 | 0.05738 | 6.40240 | 0.00336 |
18/10 | 7.82445 | 6.84574 | 0.97870 | 7.75275 | 0.07169 | 7.82033 | 0.00411 |
19/10 | 9.45448 | 8.22866 | 1.22581 | 9.36673 | 0.08775 | 9.44954 | 0.00494 |
2 | 11.31371 | 9.80582 | 1.50789 | 11.20811 | 0.10559 | 11.30787 | 0.00583 |
EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | ySSRK3 | |yexact−ySSRK3| |
1 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 |
11/10 | 1.39596 | 1.35000 | 0.04596 | 1.39184 | 0.00413 | 1.39575 | 0.00021 |
12/10 | 1.89293 | 1.78367 | 0.10925 | 1.88345 | 0.00948 | 1.89247 | 0.00046 |
13/10 | 2.50497 | 2.31282 | 0.19214 | 2.48883 | 0.01614 | 2.50420 | 0.00076 |
14/10 | 3.24674 | 2.94987 | 0.29688 | 3.22256 | 0.02418 | 3.24564 | 0.00110 |
15/10 | 4.13351 | 3.70782 | 0.42569 | 4.09983 | 0.03369 | 4.13202 | 0.00149 |
16/10 | 5.18108 | 4.60027 | 0.58081 | 5.13635 | 0.04473 | 5.17914 | 0.00193 |
17/10 | 6.40577 | 5.64135 | 0.76442 | 6.34839 | 0.05738 | 6.40335 | 0.00242 |
18/10 | 7.82445 | 6.84574 | 0.97870 | 7.75275 | 0.07169 | 7.82149 | 0.00296 |
19/10 | 9.45448 | 8.22866 | 1.22581 | 9.36673 | 0.08775 | 9.45093 | 0.00355 |
2 | 11.31371 | 9.80582 | 1.50789 | 11.20811 | 0.10559 | 11.30952 | 0.00419 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | SSRK3 | |||||
n | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order |
10 | 1.507887 | --- | 0.105594 | --- | 0.005834 | --- | 0.004193 | --- |
20 | 0.803028 | 0.9090 | 0.028540 | 1.8875 | 0.000787 | 2.8901 | 0.000563 | 2.8971 |
40 | 0.414814 | 0.9530 | 0.007426 | 1.9424 | 0.000102 | 2.9470 | 0.000073 | 2.9488 |
80 | 0.210871 | 0.9761 | 0.001894 | 1.9708 | 0.000013 | 2.9741 | 0.000009 | 2.9745 |
160 | 0.106319 | 0.9880 | 0.000478 | 1.9853 | 0.000002 | 2.9872 | 0.000001 | 2.9873 |
320 | 0.053383 | 0.9940 | 0.000120 | 1.9926 | 0.000000 | 2.9937 | 0.000000 | 2.9936 |
640 | 0.026748 | 0.9970 | 0.000030 | 1.9963 | 0.000000 | 2.9968 | 0.000000 | 2.9968 |
1280 | 0.013388 | 0.9985 | 0.000008 | 1.9982 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 |
2560 | 0.006697 | 0.9992 | 0.000002 | 1.9991 | 0.000000 | 2.9992 | 0.000000 | 2.9992 |
Example 5.1. (Fractional WPG model) [48] Consider the following linear IVP of FDE of WPG model,
CDβt+0n(t)=Pn(t),t>t0,withsuplementarycondition,n(t0)=n0. | (5.1) |
Here, P=B−M is the population production rate where B is the birth rate and M is the mortality rate. Also, n(t) is the individuals population at time t and CDβ is the β order rate of change of population. This model (5.1) is known as fractional WPG model of order β. The analytic solution of (5.1) is,
n(t)=n0Eβ(Pt),t≥0. |
Particularly, if we take β=1, then that model will be classical WPG such as:
dn(t)dt=Pn(t),t>t0,with,n(t0)=n0. | (5.2) |
The analytic solution of (5.2) is,
n(t)=n0ePt,t≥0. |
The population at the initial time t0 is denoted by the symbol n0. It is found from the survey that the fractional population model (5.1) precisely fitted with world statistical population data with proper order β. In this article, we have taken the world census population data from the year 1920 to 2018 which is collected from the world population data sites SITE-1 or SITE-2 (taken from https://www.worldbank.org/) and also one population data from United Nations [49]. Here, this statistical population data is fitted for fractional order β=1.3932987548432 [48] and production rate P≈0.0034399. As per statistical world population data, we found that the initial population in the year 1920 is n0=1860 million. Also, we have taken the classical population model for which the production rate is P≈0.013501.
With the help of Matlab by following our proposed scheme with step size h=1, the statistical world population data from the year 1920 to 2018 is graphically shown in Figure 7. The analytic and approximate solution of the FDE (5.1) graphically shown in Figure 8. In addition to this, the analytic and approximate solution is tabulated in Tables 7 and 8. The absolute error graph is represented in the Figure 9. Thus, from the figure and table, we found that our suggested scheme fractional RK3 and fractional SSRK3 are much more effective and accurate to the statistical population data than EM and IEM.
Analytical | EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
Year(t) | nLinear | nFrac | nEM | Error | nIEM | Error | nRK3 | Error |
1920 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 |
1930 | 2.1289×103 | 1.9909×103 | 1.9799×103 | 1.1060×101 | 1.9892×103 | 1.7315×100 | 1.9906×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1940 | 2.4366×103 | 2.2169×103 | 2.2020×103 | 1.4921×101 | 2.2152×103 | 1.7413×100 | 2.2166×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1950 | 2.7888×103 | 2.5173×103 | 2.4987×103 | 1.8625×101 | 2.5156×103 | 1.7390×100 | 2.5170×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1960 | 3.1919×103 | 2.8943×103 | 2.8717×103 | 2.2615×101 | 2.8926×103 | 1.7320×100 | 2.8940×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1970 | 3.6533×103 | 3.3561×103 | 3.3290×103 | 2.7117×101 | 3.3544×103 | 1.7219×100 | 3.3558×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1980 | 4.1814×103 | 3.9147×103 | 3.8824×103 | 3.2308×101 | 3.9130×103 | 1.7090×100 | 3.9144×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1990 | 4.7858×103 | 4.5858×103 | 4.5474×103 | 3.8363×101 | 4.5841×103 | 1.6930×100 | 4.5855×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2000 | 5.4775×103 | 5.3885×103 | 5.3431×103 | 4.5471×101 | 5.3869×103 | 1.6737×100 | 5.3882×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2010 | 6.2693×103 | 6.3462×103 | 6.2923×103 | 5.3847×101 | 6.3445×103 | 1.6505×100 | 6.3459×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2020 | 7.1755×103 | 7.4865×103 | 7.4228×103 | 6.3739×101 | 7.4849×103 | 1.6229×100 | 7.4862×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
Year(t) | nLinear | nFrac | nEM | Error | nIEM | Error | nSSRK3 | Error |
1920 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 |
1930 | 2.1289×103 | 1.9909×103 | 1.9799×103 | 1.1060×101 | 1.9892×103 | 1.7315×100 | 1.9906×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1940 | 2.4366×103 | 2.2169×103 | 2.2020×103 | 1.4921×101 | 2.2152×103 | 1.7413×100 | 2.2166×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1950 | 2.7888×103 | 2.5173×103 | 2.4987×103 | 1.8625×101 | 2.5156×103 | 1.7390×100 | 2.5170×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1960 | 3.1919×103 | 2.8943×103 | 2.8717×103 | 2.2615×101 | 2.8926×103 | 1.7320×100 | 2.8940×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1970 | 3.6533×103 | 3.3561×103 | 3.3290×103 | 2.7117×101 | 3.3544×103 | 1.7219×100 | 3.3558×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1980 | 4.1814×103 | 3.9147×103 | 3.8824×103 | 3.2308×101 | 3.9130×103 | 1.7090×100 | 3.9144×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1990 | 4.7858×103 | 4.5858×103 | 4.5474×103 | 3.8363×101 | 4.5841×103 | 1.6930×100 | 4.5855×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2000 | 5.4775×103 | 5.3885×103 | 5.3431×103 | 4.5471×101 | 5.3869×103 | 1.6737×100 | 5.3882×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2010 | 6.2693×103 | 6.3462×103 | 6.2923×103 | 5.3847×101 | 6.3445×103 | 1.6505×100 | 6.3459×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2020 | 7.1755×103 | 7.4865×103 | 7.4228×103 | 6.3739×101 | 7.4849×103 | 1.6229×100 | 7.4862×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
As per "The Census Bureau's International Data Base", the world population reached around 7.5 billion till June 2018. So, we conclude that our fractional population model for β=1.3932987548432 is more accurate and near the statistical population data by following our fractional RK3 scheme and fractional SSRK3 scheme. Also, both our schemes give more accurate and faster results than EM and IEM algorithms.
Example 5.2. (Fractional ND model) [50] Consider the following time fractional radioactive decay equation:
CDβt+0N(t)=−λN(t),t>t0,supplementarycondition,N(t0)=N0. | (5.3) |
Here CDβt+0 denotes the CFOD of arbitrary order β, β∈(0,1] and N(t) represents the number of radioactive particle at any time t. The quantity N0 is the initial number of particles at t=0 and λ is decay constant, where λ=1τ, and τ is mean life time. The analytic solution for fractional order 0<β<1 of FDE (5.3) is
N(t)=N0Eβ(−λtβ),t≥0. |
Particularly, for β=1, the fractional order nuclear decay equation given by FDE (5.3) reduces to the classical one,
dN(t)dt=−λN(t),t>t0,withN(t0)=N0. | (5.4) |
The analytical solution of (5.4) is,
N(t)=N0e−λt. |
In this example, we have taken the experimental data of radioactivity of isotope of Aluminum (28Al), which represents a decay model, since particles are emitted over the time and we collect the data from the survey of research article [51] for both the classical nuclear model and fractional nuclear model. It is also found that our fractional model is best fit with our experimental data [51] for fractional order β=0.8252 and decay constant λ=0.0314. Here, we have also taken the classical model for comparison purpose where the values of β=1 and decay constant λ=0.0121. For the radioactivity of Aluminum, the initial number of radioactive particle is N0=1200 at time t=0 second.
With the help of Matlab by following our proposed scheme with step size h=10 second, the analytic and approximate solution of the fractional model (5.3) as well as classical model (5.4) is graphically shown in Figure 10. In addition to this, the analytic and approximate solution is tabulated in the Tables 9 and 10. The absolute error graph is represented in the Figure 11. Thus from the figure and table, we found that our suggested scheme fractional RK3 and fractional SSRK3 are much more efficiency and accurate to the statistical population data compare to EM and IEM.
Analytical | EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
Time(sec) | NLinear | NFrac | NEM | Error | NIEM | Error | NRK3 | Error |
0.00 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 |
50.00 | 655.289312 | 551.999494 | 560.334119 | 8.334625 | 552.321059 | 0.321565 | 552.160287 | 0.160792 |
100.00 | 357.836735 | 326.316340 | 336.069553 | 9.753213 | 326.689759 | 0.373419 | 326.503032 | 0.186692 |
150.00 | 195.405490 | 225.162844 | 234.125085 | 8.962241 | 225.505641 | 0.342797 | 225.334224 | 0.171379 |
200.00 | 106.705941 | 164.801057 | 172.792163 | 7.991106 | 165.105400 | 0.304344 | 164.953198 | 0.152142 |
250.00 | 58.269386 | 127.698306 | 134.676180 | 6.977874 | 127.963163 | 0.264857 | 127.830699 | 0.132393 |
300.00 | 31.819421 | 103.296152 | 109.401183 | 6.105030 | 103.527234 | 0.231082 | 103.411656 | 0.115504 |
350.00 | 17.375772 | 86.385264 | 91.765128 | 5.379864 | 86.588438 | 0.203174 | 86.486814 | 0.101550 |
400.00 | 9.488465 | 74.133931 | 78.920527 | 4.786596 | 74.314379 | 0.180448 | 74.224118 | 0.090188 |
450.00 | 5.181408 | 64.921999 | 69.222799 | 4.300800 | 65.083905 | 0.161906 | 65.002917 | 0.080918 |
500.00 | 2.829434 | 57.777720 | 61.677770 | 3.900050 | 57.924374 | 0.146654 | 57.851014 | 0.073294 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
Time(sec) | NLinear | NFrac | NEM | Error | NIEM | Error | NSSRK3 | Error |
0.00 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 |
50.00 | 655.289312 | 551.999494 | 560.334119 | 8.334625 | 552.321059 | 0.321565 | 552.015574 | 0.016080 |
100.00 | 357.836735 | 326.316340 | 336.069553 | 9.753213 | 326.689759 | 0.373419 | 326.335008 | 0.018668 |
150.00 | 195.405490 | 225.162844 | 234.125085 | 8.962241 | 225.505641 | 0.342797 | 225.179981 | 0.017136 |
200.00 | 106.705941 | 164.801057 | 172.792163 | 7.991106 | 165.105400 | 0.304344 | 164.816268 | 0.015211 |
250.00 | 58.269386 | 127.698306 | 134.676180 | 6.977874 | 127.963163 | 0.264857 | 127.711542 | 0.013236 |
300.00 | 31.819421 | 103.296152 | 109.401183 | 6.105030 | 103.527234 | 0.231082 | 103.307699 | 0.011547 |
350.00 | 17.375772 | 86.385264 | 91.765128 | 5.379864 | 86.588438 | 0.203174 | 86.395416 | 0.010152 |
400.00 | 9.488465 | 74.133931 | 78.920527 | 4.786596 | 74.314379 | 0.180448 | 74.142946 | 0.009015 |
450.00 | 5.181408 | 64.921999 | 69.222799 | 4.300800 | 65.083905 | 0.161906 | 64.930088 | 0.008089 |
500.00 | 2.829434 | 57.777720 | 61.677770 | 3.900050 | 57.924374 | 0.146654 | 57.785046 | 0.007326 |
In this research article, a remarkable study has been done for finding the numerical approximation of the IVP of FDEs (1.1) of fractional order β where β∈(0,1]. Here, we proposed two cubic convergence schemes: Fractional RK3 scheme and fractional SSRK3 scheme, and these schemes are based on classical RK3 scheme and classical SSRK3 scheme, respectively. We follow the analogous properties of the Caputo derivative to reduce the IVP of FDEs into an IVP of ODE of integer order. From the numerical point of view, both our suggested schemes are efficient and more accurate compared to other cubic convergence schemes as well as all linear and quadratic convergence schemes of IVP of FDEs (1.1). Also, we demonstrate the comparative numerical study of our proposed method with the existing fractional EM and fractional IEM of IVP of FDEs. In addition to this, we provide the numerical solution of two physical application examples: The fractional WPG model and fractional ND model, using our suggested work to compare with the existing scheme EM and IEM. It is proven that our suggested schemes are faster and more accurate compared with EM and IEM. The significant concluding remark of our scheme are as follows:
● The fractional RK3 scheme is a cubic convergence scheme, faster than the other linear and quadratic convergence schemes for the IVP of FDEs.
● The fractional SSRK3 scheme also has a cubic convergence scheme that is more stable and faster compared to RK3 and as well as all other cubic convergence schemes for the IVP of FDEs.
● Computationally, both schemes are effective, and we get the satisfactory numerical approximation with the help of Matlab by enlargement of step length.
The first and third author extended their appreciation to Distinguished Scientist Fellowship Program (DSFP) at King Saud University, Saudi Arabia.
All authors declare no conflicts of interest.
[1] | Kalpana V, Ram PVV, Soujanya P, et al. (2017) Robertsonian translocations t(21q;21q) and t(14q;21q) in Down syndrome. Int J Med Health Sci 6: 53-58. |
[2] |
Asim A, Kumar A, Muthuswamy S, et al. (2015) Down syndrome: an insight of the disease. J Biomed Sci 22: 41-50. doi: 10.1186/s12929-015-0138-y
![]() |
[3] |
Lyle R, Bena F, Gagos S, et al. (2009) Genotype-phenotype correlations in Down syndrome identified by array CGH in 30 cases of partial trisomy and partial monosomy of chromosome 21. Eur J Hum Genet 17: 454-466. doi: 10.1038/ejhg.2008.214
![]() |
[4] |
Ait Yahya-Graison E, Aubert J, Dauphinot L, et al. (2007) Classification of human chromosome 21 gene-expression variations in Down syndrome: Impact on disease phenotypes. Am J Hum Genet 81: 475-491. doi: 10.1086/520000
![]() |
[5] | Di Cunto F, Berto G (2013) Molecular pathways of Down Syndrome Critical Region genes. |
[6] |
Barlow G, Chen X, Shi Z, et al. (2001) Down syndrome congenital heart disease: A narrowed region and a candidate gene. Genet Med 3: 91-101. doi: 10.1097/00125817-200103000-00002
![]() |
[7] |
Korbel J, Tirosh-Wagner T, Urban A, et al. (2009) The genetic architecture of Down syndrome phenotypes revealed by high-resolution analysis of human segmental trisomies. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 106: 12031-12036. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0813248106
![]() |
[8] |
Antonorakis S, Lyle R, Dermitzakis E, et al. (2004) Chromosome 21 and Down syndrome: from genomics to pathophysiology. Nat Rev Genet 5: 725-738. doi: 10.1038/nrg1448
![]() |
[9] |
Sturgeon X, Le T, Ahmed M, et al. (2012) Pathways to cognitive deficits in Down syndrome. Prog Brain Res 197: 73-100. doi: 10.1016/B978-0-444-54299-1.00005-4
![]() |
[10] | Pelleri MC, Cicchini E, Locatelli C, et al. (2016) Systematic reanalysis of partial trisomy 21 cases with or without Down syndrome suggests a small region on 21q22.1.3 as critical to the phenotype. Hum Mol Genet 25: 2525-2538. |
[11] |
Pelleri MC, Cicchini E, Petersen M, et al. (2019) Partial trisomy map: Ten cases further supporting the highly restricted Down syndrome critical region (HR-DSCR) on human chromosome 21. Mol Genet Genomic Med 7: e797. doi: 10.1002/mgg3.797
![]() |
[12] | Homfray T, Farndon P (2014) Fetal anomalies. The geneticist's approach. Twining's Textbook of Fetal Abnormalities London: Churchill Livingstone, 139-160. |
[13] |
Rondal JA, Perera J, Spiker D (2011) Neurocognitive Rehabilitation of Down Syndrome Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511919299
![]() |
[14] |
Chapman R, Hesketh L (2000) Behavioral phenotype of individuals with Down syndrome. Ment Retard Dev Dis Res Rev 6: 84-95. doi: 10.1002/1098-2779(2000)6:2<84::AID-MRDD2>3.0.CO;2-P
![]() |
[15] |
Abbeduto L, Warren S, Conners F (2007) Language development in Down syndrome: from the prelinguistic period to the acquisition of literacy. Ment Retard Dev Dis Res Rev 13: 247-261. doi: 10.1002/mrdd.20158
![]() |
[16] |
Takahashi K, Tanabe K, Ohnuki M, et al. (2007) Induction of pluripotent stem cells from adult human fiboblasts by defined factors. Cell 131: 861-72. doi: 10.1016/j.cell.2007.11.019
![]() |
[17] |
Li L, Chang K, Wang P, et al. (2012) Trisomy correction in Down syndrome induced pluripotent stem cells. Cell Stem Cell 11: 615-619. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2012.08.004
![]() |
[18] |
Jiang J, Jing Y, Cost G, et al. (2013) Translating dosage compensation for trisomy 21. Nature 500: 296-300. doi: 10.1038/nature12394
![]() |
[19] |
Amano T, Jeffries E, Amano M, et al. (2015) Correction of Down syndrome and Edwards syndrome aneuploidies in human cell cultures. DNA Res 22: 331-342. doi: 10.1093/dnares/dsv016
![]() |
[20] |
Inoue M, Kajiwara K, Yamaguchi A, et al. (2019) Autonomous trisomic rescue of Down syndrome cells. Lab Invest 99: 885-897. doi: 10.1038/s41374-019-0230-0
![]() |
[21] | Epstein C (2001) Down syndrome (trisomy 21). The Metabolic and Molecular Bases of Inherited Disease New York: McGraw-Hill, 1223-1256. |
[22] |
Lejeune J (1990) Pathogenesis of mental deficiency in trisomy 21. Am J Med Genet 37: 20-30. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.1320370705
![]() |
[23] |
Delabar JM, Théophile D, Rahmani Z, et al. (1993) Molecular mapping of twenty-four features of Down syndrome on chromosome 21. Eur J Hum Genet 1: 114-124. doi: 10.1159/000472398
![]() |
[24] |
Tejedor F, Hammerle B (2011) MNB/DYRK1A as a multiple regulator of neuronal development. FEBS J 278: 223-235. doi: 10.1111/j.1742-4658.2010.07954.x
![]() |
[25] |
Thomazeau A, Lasalle O, Lafrati J, et al. (2014) Prefrontal deficits in a murine model overexpressing the Down syndrome candidate gene dyrk1a. J Neurosci 34: 1138-1147. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.2852-13.2014
![]() |
[26] |
Li S, Qu Z, Haas M, et al. (2016) The HSA21 gene EURL/C21ORF91 controls neurogenesis within the cerebral cortex and is implicated in the pathogenesis of Down syndrome. Sci Rep 6: 29514. doi: 10.1038/srep29514
![]() |
[27] |
Chakrabarti L, Best T, Cramer N, et al. (2010) Olig1 and Olig2 triplication causes developmental brain defects in Down syndrome. Nat Neurosci 13: 927-934. doi: 10.1038/nn.2600
![]() |
[28] |
Manley W, Anderson S (2019) Dosage counts: Correcting trisomy-21-related phenotypes in human organoids and xenografts. Cell Stem Cell 24: 835-36. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.05.009
![]() |
[29] |
Ishihara K, Shimizu R, Takata K, et al. (2019) Perturbation of the immune cells and prenatal neurogenesis by the triplication of the Erg gene in mouse models of Down syndrome. Brain Pathol 30: 75-91. doi: 10.1111/bpa.12758
![]() |
[30] | Aboudafir E (2017) Trisomie 21: Perspectives Actuelles de Recherche de Traitement. Unpublished doctoral dissertation France: Université de Lorraine, Nancy, Available from: HAL, univ-Lorraine.fr/hal01932163. |
[31] |
Fillat C, Bofill-De Ros X, Santos M, et al. (2014) Identification de genes clave implicados en el sindrome de Down mediante terapia genetica. Rev Med Int Sindrome Down 18: 21-28. doi: 10.1016/S2171-9748(14)70049-2
![]() |
[32] |
Wang X, Zhao Y, Zhang X, et al. (2013) Loss of sorting nexin 27 contributes to excitatory synaptic dysfunction by modulating glutamate receptor recycling in Down syndrome. Nature Med 19: 473-480. doi: 10.1038/nm.3117
![]() |
[33] |
Rueda N, Flórez J, Martinez-Cue C (2012) Mouse models of Down syndrome as a tool to unravel the causes of mental disabilities. Neural Plast 2012: 584071. doi: 10.1155/2012/584071
![]() |
[34] |
Aziz N, Guedj F, Pennings J, et al. (2018) Lifespan analysis of brain development, gene expression and behavioral phenotypes in the Ts1Cje, Ts65Dn and Dp(16)1/Yey mouse models of Down syndrome. Dis Mod Mech 11: dmm031013. doi: 10.1242/dmm.031013
![]() |
[35] |
Yu T, Li Z, Jia Z, et al. (2010) A mouse model of Down syndrome trisomic for all human chromosome 21 syntenic regions. Hum Mol Genet 19: 2780-2791. doi: 10.1093/hmg/ddq179
![]() |
[36] |
Xu R, Brawner A, Li S, et al. (2019) OLIG2 drives abnormal neurodevelopmental phenotypes in human iPSC-based organoid and chimeric mouse models of Down syndrome. Cell Stem Cell 24: 908-926.E8. doi: 10.1016/j.stem.2019.04.014
![]() |
[37] |
Caplan A, Wilson J (2000) The clinical challenges of in utero therapy. Nat Genet 24: 107-108. doi: 10.1038/72747
![]() |
[38] |
Nakano-Kobayashi A, Awaya T, Kii I, et al. (2017) Prenatal neurogenesis induction therapy normalizes brain structure and function in Down syndrome mice. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 114: 10268-10273. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1704143114
![]() |
[39] |
Hibaoui Y, Grad I, Letourneau A, et al. (2014) Modelling and rescuing neurodevelopmental defect of Down syndrome using pluripotent stem cells from monozygotic twins discordant for trisomy 21. EMBO Mol Med 6: 259-277. doi: 10.1002/emmm.201302848
![]() |
[40] |
Guedj F, Sebrie C, Rivals I, et al. (2009) Green tea polyphenols rescue brain defects induced by overexpression of DYRK1A. PloS One 4: 1-8. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0004606
![]() |
[41] |
Stagni F, Giacomini A, Emili M, et al. (2016) Short- and long-term effects of neonatal pharmacotherapy with epigallocatechin-3-gallate on hippocampal development in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome. Neuroscience 333: 277-301. doi: 10.1016/j.neuroscience.2016.07.031
![]() |
[42] |
De la Torre R, De Sola S, Pons M, et al. (2014) Epigallocatechin-3-gallate, a DYRK1A inhibitor, rescues cognitive deficits in Down syndrome mouse models and in human. Mol Nutr Food Res 58: 278-288. doi: 10.1002/mnfr.201300325
![]() |
[43] |
De la Torre R, De Sola S, Hernandez G, et al. (2016) Safety and efficacy of cognitive training plus epigallocatechin-3-gallate in young adults with Down's syndrome (TESDAD): A double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, phase 2 trial. Lancet Neurol 15: 801-810. doi: 10.1016/S1474-4422(16)30034-5
![]() |
[44] |
Xicota L, Rodriguez J, Langohr K, et al. (2020) Effect of epigallocatechin gallate on the body composition and lipid profile of Down syndrome individuals: Implications for clinical management. Clin Nutr 39: 1292-1300. doi: 10.1016/j.clnu.2019.05.028
![]() |
[45] |
Long R, Drawbaugh M, Davis C, et al. (2019) Usage of and attitudes about green tea extract and epigallocathechin-3-gallate (EGCG) as a therapy in individuals with Down syndrome. Complement Ther Med 45: 234-241. doi: 10.1016/j.ctim.2019.07.002
![]() |
[46] |
Sparks A, Truble C, Wang E, et al. (2012) Noninvasive prenatal detection and selective analysis of cell-free DNA obtained from maternal blood: Evaluation for trisomy 21 and trisomy 18. Am J Obstet Gynecol 206: 319 e1-e9. doi: 10.1016/j.ajog.2012.01.030
![]() |
[47] |
Nicolaides K, Syngelaki A, Poon L, et al. (2014) First-trimester contingent screening for trisomy 21, 18, and 13 by biomarkers and maternal blood cell-free DNA testing. Fetal Diagn Ther 35: 185-192. doi: 10.1159/000356066
![]() |
[48] |
Sun X, Lu J, Ma X (2019) An efficient method for noninvasive prenatal diagnosis of fetal trisomy 13, trisomy 18, and trisomy 21. PloS One 14: e0215368. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0215368
![]() |
[49] |
Shan D, Wang H, Khatri P, et al. (2019) The urinary peptidome as a noninvasive biomarker development strategy for prenatal screening of Down's syndrome. OMICS 23: 439-447. doi: 10.1089/omi.2019.0098
![]() |
[50] |
Reena M, Pisani P, Conversano F, et al. (2013) Sonographic markers for early diagnosis of fetal malformations. World J Radiol 5: 356-371. doi: 10.4329/wjr.v5.i10.356
![]() |
[51] |
Zbucka-Kretowska M, Niemira M, Paczkowska-Abdulasam M, et al. (2019) Prenatal circulating microRNA signatures of foetal Down syndrome. Sci Rep 9: 1-6. doi: 10.1038/s41598-018-35876-5
![]() |
[52] |
Malik S, Vinukonda G, Vose L, et al. (2013) Neurogenesis continues in the third trimester of pregnancy and is suppressed by premature birth. J Neurosci 33: 411-423. doi: 10.1523/JNEUROSCI.4445-12.2013
![]() |
[53] |
Gotti S, Caricati E, Panzica G (2011) Alterations of brain circuits in DS murine models. J Chem Neuroanat 42: 317-326. doi: 10.1016/j.jchemneu.2011.09.002
![]() |
[54] |
Chang Q, Gold P (2008) Age-related changes in memory and in acetylcholine functions in the hippocampus in the Ts65Dn mouse, a model of Down syndrome. Neurobiol Learn Mem 89: 167-177. doi: 10.1016/j.nlm.2007.05.007
![]() |
[55] |
Kelley C, Ash J, Powers B, et al. (2016) Effects of maternal choline supplementation on the septohippocampal cholinergic system in the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome. Curr Alzheimer Res 13: 84-96. doi: 10.2174/1567205012666150921100515
![]() |
[56] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Sullivan J, et al. (2003) Donepezil for the treatment of language deficits in adults with Down syndrome: a preliminary 24-week open trial. Am Med Genet 116A: 111-116. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.10074
![]() |
[57] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Doraiswamy P, et al. (2004) Donepezil effects on language in children with Down syndrome. Results of the first 22-week pilot clinical trial. Am J Med Genet 130A: 325-26. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.30184
![]() |
[58] |
Kishnani P, Sommer B, Handen B, et al. (2009) The efficacy, safety, and tolerability of donepezil for the treatment of young adults with Down syndrome. Am J Med Genet 149A: 1641-1654. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.32953
![]() |
[59] |
Kishnani P, Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, et al. (2010) Donepezil for treatment of cognitive dysfunction in children with Down syndrome aged 10–17. Am J Med Genet 152A: 3028-3035. doi: 10.1002/ajmg.a.33730
![]() |
[60] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Crissman B, et al. (2006) Safety and efficacy of rivastigmine in adolescents with Down syndrome: A preliminary 20-week, open-label study. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 16: 755-765. doi: 10.1089/cap.2006.16.755
![]() |
[61] |
Heller J, Spiridigliozzi G, Crissman B, et al. (2010) Safety and efficacy of rivastigmine in adolescents with Down syndrome: Long-term follow-up. J Child Adolesc Psychopharmacol 20: 517-520. doi: 10.1089/cap.2009.0099
![]() |
[62] | Gardiner K (2015) Pharmacological approaches to improving cognitive function in Down syndrome: current status and considerations. Drug Des Devel Ther 9: 103-125. |
[63] |
Costa A, Scott-McKean J, Stasko M (2008) Acute injections of the NMDA receptor antagonist memantine rescue performance deficits of the Ts65Dn mouse model of Down syndrome on a fear conditioning test. Neuropsychopharmacology 33: 1624-1632. doi: 10.1038/sj.npp.1301535
![]() |
[64] |
Capone G (2011) Pharmacotherapy for children with Down syndrome. Neurocognitive Rehabilitation of Down Syndrome Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 96-116. doi: 10.1017/CBO9780511919299.008
![]() |
[65] |
Fernandez F, Morishita W, Zuniga E, et al. (2007) Pharmacotherapy for cognitive impairment in a mouse model of Down syndrome. Nat Neurosci 10: 411-413. doi: 10.1038/nn1860
![]() |
[66] |
Liogier d'Ardhuy X, Edgin J, Bouis C, et al. (2015) Assessment of cognitive scales to examine memory, executive function and language in individuals with Down syndrome: Implications of a 6-month observational study. Front Behav Neurosci 9: 300. doi: 10.3389/fnbeh.2015.00300
![]() |
[67] |
Guidi S, Stagni F, Bianchi P, et al. (2014) Prenatal pharmacotherapy rescues brain development in a Down's syndrome mouse model. Brain 137: 380-401. doi: 10.1093/brain/awt340
![]() |
[68] |
Lockrow J, Prakasam A, Huang P, et al. (2009) Cholinergic degeneration and memory loss delayed by vitamin E in a Down syndrome mouse model. Exp Neurol 216: 278-289. doi: 10.1016/j.expneurol.2008.11.021
![]() |
[69] |
Sano M, Aisen P, Andrews H, et al. (2016) Vitamin E in aging persons with Down syndrome: A randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trial. Neurology 86: 2071-2076. doi: 10.1212/WNL.0000000000002714
![]() |
[70] |
Lobaugh N, Karaskov V, Rombough V, et al. (2001) Piracetam therapy does not enhance cognitive functioning in children with Down syndrome. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 155: 442-448. doi: 10.1001/archpedi.155.4.442
![]() |
[71] |
Plane J, Chen Y, Pleasure D, et al. (2010) Prospects for minocycline protection. Arch Neurol 67: 1442-1448. doi: 10.1001/archneurol.2010.191
![]() |
[72] | Chen C, Jiang P, Xue H, et al. (2014) Role of astroglia in Down's syndrome revealed by patient-derived human-induced pluripotent stem cells. Nat Commun 5: 1-18. |
[73] |
Brose R, Svonenko A, Devenney B, et al. (2019) Hydroxyurea improves spatial memory and cognitive plasticity in mice and has a mild effect on these parameters in a Down syndrome mouse model. Front Aging Neurosci 11: 96. doi: 10.3389/fnagi.2019.00096
![]() |
[74] | Prasher V (2005) Alzheimer and Dementia in Down Syndrome and Intellectual Disabilities Abingdon: Radcliffe. |
[75] |
Doran E, Keator D, Head E, et al. (2017) Down syndrome, partial trisomy, and absence of Alzheimer's disease: The role of APP. J Alzheimers Dis 56: 459-470. doi: 10.3233/JAD-160836
![]() |
[76] |
O'Brien R, Wong P (2011) Amyloid precursor protein processing and Alzheimer's disease. Ann Rev Neurosci 34: 185-204. doi: 10.1146/annurev-neuro-061010-113613
![]() |
[77] |
Rafii M, Lukic A, Andrews R, et al. (2017) PET imaging of Tau pathology and relationship to amyloid, longitudinal MRI, and cognitive change in Down syndrome: Results from the Down Syndrome Biomarker Initiative (DSBI). J Alzheimers Dis 60: 439-450. doi: 10.3233/JAD-170390
![]() |
[78] |
Rafii M (2018) Tau PET for staging of Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome. Dev Neurobiol 79: 711-715. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22658
![]() |
[79] | Vogels O (1990) The Nucleus Basalis of Meynert Complex and Adjacent Structures in Normal Aging and Alzheimer's Disease Nijmegen: Press of the Radbouw University. |
[80] |
King A, Liu L, Chang R, et al. (2015) Nucleus basalis of Meynert revisited: anatomy, history and differential involvement in Alzheimer's and Parkinson's disease. Acta Neuropathol 129: 527-40. doi: 10.1007/s00401-015-1392-5
![]() |
[81] | Zhou J, Bingquian L (2013) Alzheimer's disease and prion protein. Intractable Rare Dis Res 2: 35-44. |
[82] |
Novak P, Prcina M, Kontseva E (2011) Tauons and prions: Infamous cousins? Alzheimer Dis 26: 413-430. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2011-110194
![]() |
[83] |
Hsiung G, Sadovnick A (2007) Genetics and dementia: Risk factors, diagnosis, and management. Alzheimer Dement 3: 418-427. doi: 10.1016/j.jalz.2007.07.010
![]() |
[84] |
Schipper H (2011) Apolipoprotein E: implications for AD neurobiology, epidemiology and risk assessment. Neurobiol Aging 32: 77-90. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2009.04.021
![]() |
[85] |
Raha-Chowdhury R, Henderson J, Raha A, et al. (2019) Choroid plexus acts as gatekeeper for TREM2, abnoremal accumulation of ApoE, and fibrillary Tau in Alzheimer's disease and in Down syndrome dementia. J Alzheimers Dis 69: 91-101. doi: 10.3233/JAD-181179
![]() |
[86] |
Firth N, Startin C, Fisher E, et al. (2018) Aging related cognitive changes associated with Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome. Ann Clin Transl Neurol 20: 741-751. doi: 10.1002/acn3.571
![]() |
[87] |
Arboleda-Velasquez J, Lopera F, O'Hare M, et al. (2019) Resistance to autosomal dominant Alzheimer's disease in an APOE3 Christchurch homozygote: A case report. Nat Med 25: 1680-1683. doi: 10.1038/s41591-019-0611-3
![]() |
[88] |
Rogaeva E, Meng Y, Lee J, et al. (2007) The neuronal sortilin-related receptor SORL1 is genetically associated with Alzheimer's disease. Nat Genet 39: 168-177. doi: 10.1038/ng1943
![]() |
[89] |
Wallon D, Rousseau S, Rovelet-Lecrux A, et al. (2012) The French series of autosomal dominant early onset Alzheimer's disease cases: mutation spectrum and cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers. J Alzheimers Dis 30: 847-856. doi: 10.3233/JAD-2012-120172
![]() |
[90] |
Hochino T, Kamino K, Matsumoto M (2002) Gene dose effect of the APOE-epsilon 4 allele on plasma HDL cholesterol level in patients with Alzheimer's disease. Neurobiol Aging 23: 41-45. doi: 10.1016/S0197-4580(01)00252-4
![]() |
[91] | Malegiannaki A, Katsarou D, Liolios A, et al. (2019) Ageing and Down syndrome: Neurocognitive characteristics and pharmacological treatment. Hell J Nucl Med 22: 123-132. |
[92] |
Sanchez M, Heyn S, Das D, et al. (2012) Neurobiological elements of cognitive dysfunction in Down syndrome: Exploring the role of APP. Biol Psychiatry 71: 403-409. doi: 10.1016/j.biopsych.2011.08.016
![]() |
[93] |
Boada R, Hutaff-Lee C, Schrader A, et al. (2012) Antagonism of NMDA receptors as a potential treatment for Down syndrome: A pilot randomized controlled trial. Transl Psychiatry 2: e141. doi: 10.1038/tp.2012.66
![]() |
[94] |
Schenk D, Barbour R, Dunn W, et al. (1999) Immunization with amyloid-beta attenuates Alzheimer-disease-like pathology in the PDAPP mouse. Nature 400: 173-177. doi: 10.1038/22124
![]() |
[95] |
Matsunaga S, Kishi T, Annes P, et al. (2015) Lithium as a treatment for Alzheiner's disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis. J Alzheimers Dis 48: 403-410. doi: 10.3233/JAD-150437
![]() |
[96] | Rasore Quartino A (2012) Le terapie attuali per le persone con sindrome di Down: Lo stato del arte. Il Presente Incontra il Futuro. La Sindrome di Down Oggi e Domani Pieve di Cadore: Tiziano, 53-80. |
[97] |
Sabbagh M (2009) Drug development for Alzheimer's disease: Where are we now and where are we headed? Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 7: 167-185. doi: 10.1016/j.amjopharm.2009.06.003
![]() |
[98] |
Garcia-Cerro S, Rueda N, Vidal L, et al. (2017) Normalizing the gene dosage of DYRK1A in a mouse model of Down syndrome rescues several Alzheimer's disease phenotypes. Neurobiol Dis 106: 76-88. doi: 10.1016/j.nbd.2017.06.010
![]() |
[99] |
Kawakubo T, Mori R, Shirotani N, et al. (2017) Neprilysin is suppressed by dual-specificity tyrosine-phosphorylation regulated kinase 1A (DYRK1A) in Down syndrome derived fibroblasts. Biol Pharma Bull 40: 327-333. doi: 10.1248/bpb.b16-00825
![]() |
[100] |
Lee N, Chien Y, Hwu W (2017) A review of biomarkers for Alzheimer's disease in Down syndrome. Neurol Ther 6: 69-81. doi: 10.1007/s40120-017-0071-y
![]() |
[101] |
Hartley S, Handen B, Devenny D, et al. (2017) Cognitive decline and brain amyloid-bêta accumulation across 3 years in adults with Down syndrome. Neurobiol Aging 58: 68-76. doi: 10.1016/j.neurobiolaging.2017.05.019
![]() |
[102] |
Alhajraf F, Ness D, Hye A, et al. (2019) Plasma amyloid and tau as dementia biomarkers in Down syndrome: Systematic review and meta-analysis. Dev Neurobiol 79: 684-698. doi: 10.1002/dneu.22715
![]() |
[103] |
Bik-Multanowsky M, Pietrzyk J, Midro A (2015) MTRNRL12: A candidate blood marker of early Alzheimer's disease-like dementia in adults with Down syndrome. J Alzheimers Dis 46: 145-150. doi: 10.3233/JAD-143030
![]() |
[104] |
Shinomoto M, Kasai T, Tatebe H, et al. (2019) Plasma neurofilament light chain: A potential prognostic biomarker of dementia in adult Down syndrome patients. PloS One 14: e0211575. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0211575
![]() |
[105] |
Rafii M, Donohue M, Matthews D, et al. (2019) Plasma neurofilament light and Alzheimer's disease biomarkers in Down syndrome: Results from the Down Syndrome Biomarker Initiative (DSBI). J Alzheimers Dis 70: 131-138. doi: 10.3233/JAD-190322
![]() |
[106] |
Hamlett E, Ledreux A, Potter H, et al. (2018) Exosomal biomarkers in Down syndrome and Alzheimer's disease. Free Radical Biol Medicine 114: 110-121. doi: 10.1016/j.freeradbiomed.2017.08.028
![]() |
[107] |
Motta C, Di Lorenzo F, Ponzo V, et al. (2017) Transcranial magnetic stimulation predicts cognitive decline in patients with Alzheimer's disease. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 89: 1237-1242. doi: 10.1136/jnnp-2017-317879
![]() |
[108] |
Nawa N, Hirata K, Kawatani K, et al. (2019) Elimination of protein aggregates prevents premature senescence in human trisomy 21 fibroblasts. PloS One 14: e0219592. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0219592
![]() |
[109] | Li JG, Chiu J, Praticò D (2019) Full recovery of Alzheimer's disease phenotype by gain of function of vacuolar protein sorting 35. Mol Psychiatry 1-11. |
[110] | Vagnozzi A, Li JG, Chiu J, et al. (2019) VPS35 regulates tau phosphorylation and neuropathology in taupathy. Mol Psychiatry 1-14. |
1. | Kunrada KANKAM, Prasit CHOLAMJİAK, Watcharaporn CHOLAMJİAK, A modified parallel monotone hybrid algorithm for a finite family of $\mathcal{G}$-nonexpansive mappings apply to a novel signal recovery, 2022, 5, 2636-7556, 393, 10.53006/rna.1122092 | |
2. | Jitsupa Deepho, Abubakar Adamu, Abdulkarim Hassan Ibrahim, Auwal Bala Abubakar, Relaxed viscosity-type iterative methods with application to compressed sensing, 2023, 0971-3611, 10.1007/s41478-022-00547-2 | |
3. | Jun Yang, Prasit Cholamjiak, Pongsakorn Sunthrayuth, Weak and strong convergence results for solving monotone variational inequalities in reflexive Banach spaces, 2022, 0233-1934, 1, 10.1080/02331934.2022.2069568 | |
4. | Shaotao Hu, Yuanheng Wang, Liya Liu, Qiao-Li Dong, An inertial self-adaptive iterative algorithm for finding the common solutions to split feasibility and fixed point problems in specific Banach spaces, 2023, 424, 03770427, 115010, 10.1016/j.cam.2022.115010 | |
5. | Simeon Reich, Truong Minh Tuyen, Pongsakorn Sunthrayuth, Prasit Cholamjiak, Two New Inertial Algorithms for Solving Variational Inequalities in Reflexive Banach Spaces, 2021, 42, 0163-0563, 1954, 10.1080/01630563.2021.2006692 | |
6. | V. V. Semenov, S. V. Denisov, G. V. Sandrakov, O. S. Kharkov, Convergence of the Operator Extrapolation Method for Variational Inequalities in Banach Spaces*, 2022, 58, 1060-0396, 740, 10.1007/s10559-022-00507-5 | |
7. | V. V. Semenov, S. V. Denisov, Convergence of the Method of Extrapolation from the Past for Variational Inequalities in Uniformly Convex Banach Spaces*, 2022, 58, 1060-0396, 564, 10.1007/s10559-022-00490-x | |
8. | Bing Tan, Pongsakorn Sunthrayuth, Prasit Cholamjiak, Yeol Je Cho, Modified inertial extragradient methods for finding minimum-norm solution of the variational inequality problem with applications to optimal control problem, 2023, 100, 0020-7160, 525, 10.1080/00207160.2022.2137672 | |
9. | Yana Vedel, Vladimir Semenov, Sergey Denisov, 2021, Chapter 4, 978-3-030-92710-3, 50, 10.1007/978-3-030-92711-0_4 | |
10. | Serhii Denysov, Vladimir Semenov, 2023, Chapter 4, 978-3-031-30250-3, 49, 10.1007/978-3-031-30251-0_4 | |
11. | V.V. Semenov, O.S. Kharkov, STRONG CONVERGENCE OF THE REGULARIZED OPERATOR EXTRAPOLATION ALGORITHM FOR VARIATIONAL INEQUALITIES, 2024, 10195262, 64, 10.34229/KCA2522-9664.24.3.6 | |
12. | V. V. Semenov, O. S. Kharkov, Strong Convergence of the Regularized Operator Extrapolation Algorithm For Variational Inequalities, 2024, 60, 1060-0396, 392, 10.1007/s10559-024-00680-9 | |
13. | Zhong-bao Wang, Pongsakorn Sunthrayuth, Ratthaprom Promkam, Abubakar Adamu, Three novel inertial subgradient extragradient methods for quasi-monotone variational inequalities in Banach spaces, 2024, 43, 2238-3603, 10.1007/s40314-024-02929-7 | |
14. | Austine Efut Ofem, Akindele Adebayo Mebawondu, Godwin Chidi Ugwunnadi, Hüseyin Işık, Ojen Kumar Narain, A modified subgradient extragradient algorithm-type for solving quasimonotone variational inequality problems with applications, 2023, 2023, 1029-242X, 10.1186/s13660-023-02981-7 | |
15. | Austine Efut Ofem, Akindele Adebayo Mebawondu, Godwin Chidi Ugwunnadi, Prasit Cholamjiak, Ojen Kumar Narain, Relaxed Tseng splitting method with double inertial steps for solving monotone inclusions and fixed point problems, 2024, 96, 1017-1398, 1465, 10.1007/s11075-023-01674-y | |
16. | V. V. Semenov, O. S. Kharkov, THE REGULARIZED OPERATOR EXTRAPOLATION ALGORITHM, 2023, 27069680, 15, 10.17721/2706-9699.2023.1.02 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | yRK3 | |yexact−yRK3| |
1/10 | 0.72358 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 |
2/10 | 0.64379 | 0.61752 | 0.02626 | 0.63966 | 0.00413 | 0.64372 | 0.00007 |
3/10 | 0.59202 | 0.55575 | 0.03627 | 0.58687 | 0.00515 | 0.59194 | 0.00008 |
4/10 | 0.55361 | 0.51194 | 0.04166 | 0.54805 | 0.00556 | 0.55353 | 0.00008 |
5/10 | 0.52316 | 0.47810 | 0.04506 | 0.51739 | 0.00577 | 0.52308 | 0.00008 |
6/10 | 0.49802 | 0.45062 | 0.04740 | 0.49213 | 0.00589 | 0.49794 | 0.00008 |
7/10 | 0.47670 | 0.42759 | 0.04911 | 0.47073 | 0.00597 | 0.47662 | 0.00008 |
8/10 | 0.45825 | 0.40783 | 0.05042 | 0.45223 | 0.00602 | 0.45817 | 0.00008 |
9/10 | 0.44202 | 0.39057 | 0.05145 | 0.43596 | 0.00606 | 0.44194 | 0.00008 |
1 | 0.42758 | 0.37530 | 0.05228 | 0.42150 | 0.00608 | 0.42750 | 0.00008 |
EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | ySSRK3 | |yexact−ySSRK3| |
1/10 | 0.72358 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 |
2/10 | 0.64379 | 0.61752 | 0.02626 | 0.63966 | 0.00413 | 0.64372 | 0.00007 |
3/10 | 0.59202 | 0.55575 | 0.03627 | 0.58687 | 0.00515 | 0.59194 | 0.00008 |
4/10 | 0.55361 | 0.51194 | 0.04166 | 0.54805 | 0.00556 | 0.55353 | 0.00008 |
5/10 | 0.52316 | 0.47810 | 0.04506 | 0.51739 | 0.00577 | 0.52308 | 0.00008 |
6/10 | 0.49802 | 0.45062 | 0.04740 | 0.49213 | 0.00589 | 0.49794 | 0.00008 |
7/10 | 0.47670 | 0.42759 | 0.04911 | 0.47073 | 0.00597 | 0.47662 | 0.00008 |
8/10 | 0.45825 | 0.40783 | 0.05042 | 0.45223 | 0.00602 | 0.45817 | 0.00008 |
9/10 | 0.44202 | 0.39057 | 0.05145 | 0.43596 | 0.00606 | 0.44194 | 0.00008 |
1 | 0.42758 | 0.37530 | 0.05228 | 0.42150 | 0.00608 | 0.42750 | 0.00008 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | SSRK3 | |||||
n | Error | Order | Error | Oredr | Error | Order | Error | Order |
10 | 0.046549 | --- | 0.004972 | --- | 0.000056 | --- | 0.000056 | --- |
20 | 0.022073 | 1.0764 | 0.001285 | 1.9523 | 0.000004 | 2.7265 | 0.000004 | 2.7265 |
40 | 0.010719 | 1.0422 | 0.000324 | 1.9859 | 0.000000 | 2.9098 | 0.000000 | 2.9098 |
80 | 0.005278 | 1.0219 | 0.000081 | 1.9963 | 0.000000 | 2.9750 | 0.000000 | 2.9750 |
160 | 0.002619 | 1.0111 | 0.000020 | 1.9991 | 0.000000 | 2.9935 | 0.000000 | 2.9935 |
320 | 0.001304 | 1.0056 | 0.000005 | 1.9998 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 |
640 | 0.000651 | 1.0028 | 0.000001 | 1.9999 | 0.000000 | 2.9993 | 0.000000 | 2.9993 |
1280 | 0.000325 | 1.0014 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 3.0077 | 0.000000 | 3.0077 |
2560 | 0.000162 | 1.0007 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 2.9533 | 0.000000 | 2.9533 |
5120 | 0.000081 | 1.0004 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 3.0559 | 0.000000 | 3.0559 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | yRK3 | |yexact−yRK3| |
1 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 |
11/10 | 1.39596 | 1.35000 | 0.04596 | 1.39184 | 0.00413 | 1.39567 | 0.00029 |
12/10 | 1.89293 | 1.78367 | 0.10925 | 1.88345 | 0.00948 | 1.89229 | 0.00064 |
13/10 | 2.50497 | 2.31282 | 0.19214 | 2.48883 | 0.01614 | 2.50391 | 0.00106 |
14/10 | 3.24674 | 2.94987 | 0.29688 | 3.22256 | 0.02418 | 3.24521 | 0.00153 |
15/10 | 4.13351 | 3.70782 | 0.42569 | 4.09983 | 0.03369 | 4.13144 | 0.00208 |
16/10 | 5.18108 | 4.60027 | 0.58081 | 5.13635 | 0.04473 | 5.17839 | 0.00269 |
17/10 | 6.40577 | 5.64135 | 0.76442 | 6.34839 | 0.05738 | 6.40240 | 0.00336 |
18/10 | 7.82445 | 6.84574 | 0.97870 | 7.75275 | 0.07169 | 7.82033 | 0.00411 |
19/10 | 9.45448 | 8.22866 | 1.22581 | 9.36673 | 0.08775 | 9.44954 | 0.00494 |
2 | 11.31371 | 9.80582 | 1.50789 | 11.20811 | 0.10559 | 11.30787 | 0.00583 |
EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | ySSRK3 | |yexact−ySSRK3| |
1 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 |
11/10 | 1.39596 | 1.35000 | 0.04596 | 1.39184 | 0.00413 | 1.39575 | 0.00021 |
12/10 | 1.89293 | 1.78367 | 0.10925 | 1.88345 | 0.00948 | 1.89247 | 0.00046 |
13/10 | 2.50497 | 2.31282 | 0.19214 | 2.48883 | 0.01614 | 2.50420 | 0.00076 |
14/10 | 3.24674 | 2.94987 | 0.29688 | 3.22256 | 0.02418 | 3.24564 | 0.00110 |
15/10 | 4.13351 | 3.70782 | 0.42569 | 4.09983 | 0.03369 | 4.13202 | 0.00149 |
16/10 | 5.18108 | 4.60027 | 0.58081 | 5.13635 | 0.04473 | 5.17914 | 0.00193 |
17/10 | 6.40577 | 5.64135 | 0.76442 | 6.34839 | 0.05738 | 6.40335 | 0.00242 |
18/10 | 7.82445 | 6.84574 | 0.97870 | 7.75275 | 0.07169 | 7.82149 | 0.00296 |
19/10 | 9.45448 | 8.22866 | 1.22581 | 9.36673 | 0.08775 | 9.45093 | 0.00355 |
2 | 11.31371 | 9.80582 | 1.50789 | 11.20811 | 0.10559 | 11.30952 | 0.00419 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | SSRK3 | |||||
n | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order |
10 | 1.507887 | --- | 0.105594 | --- | 0.005834 | --- | 0.004193 | --- |
20 | 0.803028 | 0.9090 | 0.028540 | 1.8875 | 0.000787 | 2.8901 | 0.000563 | 2.8971 |
40 | 0.414814 | 0.9530 | 0.007426 | 1.9424 | 0.000102 | 2.9470 | 0.000073 | 2.9488 |
80 | 0.210871 | 0.9761 | 0.001894 | 1.9708 | 0.000013 | 2.9741 | 0.000009 | 2.9745 |
160 | 0.106319 | 0.9880 | 0.000478 | 1.9853 | 0.000002 | 2.9872 | 0.000001 | 2.9873 |
320 | 0.053383 | 0.9940 | 0.000120 | 1.9926 | 0.000000 | 2.9937 | 0.000000 | 2.9936 |
640 | 0.026748 | 0.9970 | 0.000030 | 1.9963 | 0.000000 | 2.9968 | 0.000000 | 2.9968 |
1280 | 0.013388 | 0.9985 | 0.000008 | 1.9982 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 |
2560 | 0.006697 | 0.9992 | 0.000002 | 1.9991 | 0.000000 | 2.9992 | 0.000000 | 2.9992 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
Year(t) | nLinear | nFrac | nEM | Error | nIEM | Error | nRK3 | Error |
1920 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 |
1930 | 2.1289×103 | 1.9909×103 | 1.9799×103 | 1.1060×101 | 1.9892×103 | 1.7315×100 | 1.9906×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1940 | 2.4366×103 | 2.2169×103 | 2.2020×103 | 1.4921×101 | 2.2152×103 | 1.7413×100 | 2.2166×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1950 | 2.7888×103 | 2.5173×103 | 2.4987×103 | 1.8625×101 | 2.5156×103 | 1.7390×100 | 2.5170×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1960 | 3.1919×103 | 2.8943×103 | 2.8717×103 | 2.2615×101 | 2.8926×103 | 1.7320×100 | 2.8940×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1970 | 3.6533×103 | 3.3561×103 | 3.3290×103 | 2.7117×101 | 3.3544×103 | 1.7219×100 | 3.3558×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1980 | 4.1814×103 | 3.9147×103 | 3.8824×103 | 3.2308×101 | 3.9130×103 | 1.7090×100 | 3.9144×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1990 | 4.7858×103 | 4.5858×103 | 4.5474×103 | 3.8363×101 | 4.5841×103 | 1.6930×100 | 4.5855×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2000 | 5.4775×103 | 5.3885×103 | 5.3431×103 | 4.5471×101 | 5.3869×103 | 1.6737×100 | 5.3882×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2010 | 6.2693×103 | 6.3462×103 | 6.2923×103 | 5.3847×101 | 6.3445×103 | 1.6505×100 | 6.3459×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2020 | 7.1755×103 | 7.4865×103 | 7.4228×103 | 6.3739×101 | 7.4849×103 | 1.6229×100 | 7.4862×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
Year(t) | nLinear | nFrac | nEM | Error | nIEM | Error | nSSRK3 | Error |
1920 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 |
1930 | 2.1289×103 | 1.9909×103 | 1.9799×103 | 1.1060×101 | 1.9892×103 | 1.7315×100 | 1.9906×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1940 | 2.4366×103 | 2.2169×103 | 2.2020×103 | 1.4921×101 | 2.2152×103 | 1.7413×100 | 2.2166×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1950 | 2.7888×103 | 2.5173×103 | 2.4987×103 | 1.8625×101 | 2.5156×103 | 1.7390×100 | 2.5170×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1960 | 3.1919×103 | 2.8943×103 | 2.8717×103 | 2.2615×101 | 2.8926×103 | 1.7320×100 | 2.8940×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1970 | 3.6533×103 | 3.3561×103 | 3.3290×103 | 2.7117×101 | 3.3544×103 | 1.7219×100 | 3.3558×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1980 | 4.1814×103 | 3.9147×103 | 3.8824×103 | 3.2308×101 | 3.9130×103 | 1.7090×100 | 3.9144×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1990 | 4.7858×103 | 4.5858×103 | 4.5474×103 | 3.8363×101 | 4.5841×103 | 1.6930×100 | 4.5855×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2000 | 5.4775×103 | 5.3885×103 | 5.3431×103 | 4.5471×101 | 5.3869×103 | 1.6737×100 | 5.3882×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2010 | 6.2693×103 | 6.3462×103 | 6.2923×103 | 5.3847×101 | 6.3445×103 | 1.6505×100 | 6.3459×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2020 | 7.1755×103 | 7.4865×103 | 7.4228×103 | 6.3739×101 | 7.4849×103 | 1.6229×100 | 7.4862×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
Time(sec) | NLinear | NFrac | NEM | Error | NIEM | Error | NRK3 | Error |
0.00 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 |
50.00 | 655.289312 | 551.999494 | 560.334119 | 8.334625 | 552.321059 | 0.321565 | 552.160287 | 0.160792 |
100.00 | 357.836735 | 326.316340 | 336.069553 | 9.753213 | 326.689759 | 0.373419 | 326.503032 | 0.186692 |
150.00 | 195.405490 | 225.162844 | 234.125085 | 8.962241 | 225.505641 | 0.342797 | 225.334224 | 0.171379 |
200.00 | 106.705941 | 164.801057 | 172.792163 | 7.991106 | 165.105400 | 0.304344 | 164.953198 | 0.152142 |
250.00 | 58.269386 | 127.698306 | 134.676180 | 6.977874 | 127.963163 | 0.264857 | 127.830699 | 0.132393 |
300.00 | 31.819421 | 103.296152 | 109.401183 | 6.105030 | 103.527234 | 0.231082 | 103.411656 | 0.115504 |
350.00 | 17.375772 | 86.385264 | 91.765128 | 5.379864 | 86.588438 | 0.203174 | 86.486814 | 0.101550 |
400.00 | 9.488465 | 74.133931 | 78.920527 | 4.786596 | 74.314379 | 0.180448 | 74.224118 | 0.090188 |
450.00 | 5.181408 | 64.921999 | 69.222799 | 4.300800 | 65.083905 | 0.161906 | 65.002917 | 0.080918 |
500.00 | 2.829434 | 57.777720 | 61.677770 | 3.900050 | 57.924374 | 0.146654 | 57.851014 | 0.073294 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
Time(sec) | NLinear | NFrac | NEM | Error | NIEM | Error | NSSRK3 | Error |
0.00 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 |
50.00 | 655.289312 | 551.999494 | 560.334119 | 8.334625 | 552.321059 | 0.321565 | 552.015574 | 0.016080 |
100.00 | 357.836735 | 326.316340 | 336.069553 | 9.753213 | 326.689759 | 0.373419 | 326.335008 | 0.018668 |
150.00 | 195.405490 | 225.162844 | 234.125085 | 8.962241 | 225.505641 | 0.342797 | 225.179981 | 0.017136 |
200.00 | 106.705941 | 164.801057 | 172.792163 | 7.991106 | 165.105400 | 0.304344 | 164.816268 | 0.015211 |
250.00 | 58.269386 | 127.698306 | 134.676180 | 6.977874 | 127.963163 | 0.264857 | 127.711542 | 0.013236 |
300.00 | 31.819421 | 103.296152 | 109.401183 | 6.105030 | 103.527234 | 0.231082 | 103.307699 | 0.011547 |
350.00 | 17.375772 | 86.385264 | 91.765128 | 5.379864 | 86.588438 | 0.203174 | 86.395416 | 0.010152 |
400.00 | 9.488465 | 74.133931 | 78.920527 | 4.786596 | 74.314379 | 0.180448 | 74.142946 | 0.009015 |
450.00 | 5.181408 | 64.921999 | 69.222799 | 4.300800 | 65.083905 | 0.161906 | 64.930088 | 0.008089 |
500.00 | 2.829434 | 57.777720 | 61.677770 | 3.900050 | 57.924374 | 0.146654 | 57.785046 | 0.007326 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | yRK3 | |yexact−yRK3| |
1/10 | 0.72358 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 |
2/10 | 0.64379 | 0.61752 | 0.02626 | 0.63966 | 0.00413 | 0.64372 | 0.00007 |
3/10 | 0.59202 | 0.55575 | 0.03627 | 0.58687 | 0.00515 | 0.59194 | 0.00008 |
4/10 | 0.55361 | 0.51194 | 0.04166 | 0.54805 | 0.00556 | 0.55353 | 0.00008 |
5/10 | 0.52316 | 0.47810 | 0.04506 | 0.51739 | 0.00577 | 0.52308 | 0.00008 |
6/10 | 0.49802 | 0.45062 | 0.04740 | 0.49213 | 0.00589 | 0.49794 | 0.00008 |
7/10 | 0.47670 | 0.42759 | 0.04911 | 0.47073 | 0.00597 | 0.47662 | 0.00008 |
8/10 | 0.45825 | 0.40783 | 0.05042 | 0.45223 | 0.00602 | 0.45817 | 0.00008 |
9/10 | 0.44202 | 0.39057 | 0.05145 | 0.43596 | 0.00606 | 0.44194 | 0.00008 |
1 | 0.42758 | 0.37530 | 0.05228 | 0.42150 | 0.00608 | 0.42750 | 0.00008 |
EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | ySSRK3 | |yexact−ySSRK3| |
1/10 | 0.72358 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 | 0.72358 | 0.00000 |
2/10 | 0.64379 | 0.61752 | 0.02626 | 0.63966 | 0.00413 | 0.64372 | 0.00007 |
3/10 | 0.59202 | 0.55575 | 0.03627 | 0.58687 | 0.00515 | 0.59194 | 0.00008 |
4/10 | 0.55361 | 0.51194 | 0.04166 | 0.54805 | 0.00556 | 0.55353 | 0.00008 |
5/10 | 0.52316 | 0.47810 | 0.04506 | 0.51739 | 0.00577 | 0.52308 | 0.00008 |
6/10 | 0.49802 | 0.45062 | 0.04740 | 0.49213 | 0.00589 | 0.49794 | 0.00008 |
7/10 | 0.47670 | 0.42759 | 0.04911 | 0.47073 | 0.00597 | 0.47662 | 0.00008 |
8/10 | 0.45825 | 0.40783 | 0.05042 | 0.45223 | 0.00602 | 0.45817 | 0.00008 |
9/10 | 0.44202 | 0.39057 | 0.05145 | 0.43596 | 0.00606 | 0.44194 | 0.00008 |
1 | 0.42758 | 0.37530 | 0.05228 | 0.42150 | 0.00608 | 0.42750 | 0.00008 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | SSRK3 | |||||
n | Error | Order | Error | Oredr | Error | Order | Error | Order |
10 | 0.046549 | --- | 0.004972 | --- | 0.000056 | --- | 0.000056 | --- |
20 | 0.022073 | 1.0764 | 0.001285 | 1.9523 | 0.000004 | 2.7265 | 0.000004 | 2.7265 |
40 | 0.010719 | 1.0422 | 0.000324 | 1.9859 | 0.000000 | 2.9098 | 0.000000 | 2.9098 |
80 | 0.005278 | 1.0219 | 0.000081 | 1.9963 | 0.000000 | 2.9750 | 0.000000 | 2.9750 |
160 | 0.002619 | 1.0111 | 0.000020 | 1.9991 | 0.000000 | 2.9935 | 0.000000 | 2.9935 |
320 | 0.001304 | 1.0056 | 0.000005 | 1.9998 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 |
640 | 0.000651 | 1.0028 | 0.000001 | 1.9999 | 0.000000 | 2.9993 | 0.000000 | 2.9993 |
1280 | 0.000325 | 1.0014 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 3.0077 | 0.000000 | 3.0077 |
2560 | 0.000162 | 1.0007 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 2.9533 | 0.000000 | 2.9533 |
5120 | 0.000081 | 1.0004 | 0.000000 | 2.0000 | 0.000000 | 3.0559 | 0.000000 | 3.0559 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | yRK3 | |yexact−yRK3| |
1 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 |
11/10 | 1.39596 | 1.35000 | 0.04596 | 1.39184 | 0.00413 | 1.39567 | 0.00029 |
12/10 | 1.89293 | 1.78367 | 0.10925 | 1.88345 | 0.00948 | 1.89229 | 0.00064 |
13/10 | 2.50497 | 2.31282 | 0.19214 | 2.48883 | 0.01614 | 2.50391 | 0.00106 |
14/10 | 3.24674 | 2.94987 | 0.29688 | 3.22256 | 0.02418 | 3.24521 | 0.00153 |
15/10 | 4.13351 | 3.70782 | 0.42569 | 4.09983 | 0.03369 | 4.13144 | 0.00208 |
16/10 | 5.18108 | 4.60027 | 0.58081 | 5.13635 | 0.04473 | 5.17839 | 0.00269 |
17/10 | 6.40577 | 5.64135 | 0.76442 | 6.34839 | 0.05738 | 6.40240 | 0.00336 |
18/10 | 7.82445 | 6.84574 | 0.97870 | 7.75275 | 0.07169 | 7.82033 | 0.00411 |
19/10 | 9.45448 | 8.22866 | 1.22581 | 9.36673 | 0.08775 | 9.44954 | 0.00494 |
2 | 11.31371 | 9.80582 | 1.50789 | 11.20811 | 0.10559 | 11.30787 | 0.00583 |
EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
x | yexact | yEM | |yexact−yEM| | yIEM | |yexact−yIEM| | ySSRK3 | |yexact−ySSRK3| |
1 | 1.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 | 1.00000 | 0.00000 |
11/10 | 1.39596 | 1.35000 | 0.04596 | 1.39184 | 0.00413 | 1.39575 | 0.00021 |
12/10 | 1.89293 | 1.78367 | 0.10925 | 1.88345 | 0.00948 | 1.89247 | 0.00046 |
13/10 | 2.50497 | 2.31282 | 0.19214 | 2.48883 | 0.01614 | 2.50420 | 0.00076 |
14/10 | 3.24674 | 2.94987 | 0.29688 | 3.22256 | 0.02418 | 3.24564 | 0.00110 |
15/10 | 4.13351 | 3.70782 | 0.42569 | 4.09983 | 0.03369 | 4.13202 | 0.00149 |
16/10 | 5.18108 | 4.60027 | 0.58081 | 5.13635 | 0.04473 | 5.17914 | 0.00193 |
17/10 | 6.40577 | 5.64135 | 0.76442 | 6.34839 | 0.05738 | 6.40335 | 0.00242 |
18/10 | 7.82445 | 6.84574 | 0.97870 | 7.75275 | 0.07169 | 7.82149 | 0.00296 |
19/10 | 9.45448 | 8.22866 | 1.22581 | 9.36673 | 0.08775 | 9.45093 | 0.00355 |
2 | 11.31371 | 9.80582 | 1.50789 | 11.20811 | 0.10559 | 11.30952 | 0.00419 |
EM | IEM | RK3 | SSRK3 | |||||
n | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order | Error | Order |
10 | 1.507887 | --- | 0.105594 | --- | 0.005834 | --- | 0.004193 | --- |
20 | 0.803028 | 0.9090 | 0.028540 | 1.8875 | 0.000787 | 2.8901 | 0.000563 | 2.8971 |
40 | 0.414814 | 0.9530 | 0.007426 | 1.9424 | 0.000102 | 2.9470 | 0.000073 | 2.9488 |
80 | 0.210871 | 0.9761 | 0.001894 | 1.9708 | 0.000013 | 2.9741 | 0.000009 | 2.9745 |
160 | 0.106319 | 0.9880 | 0.000478 | 1.9853 | 0.000002 | 2.9872 | 0.000001 | 2.9873 |
320 | 0.053383 | 0.9940 | 0.000120 | 1.9926 | 0.000000 | 2.9937 | 0.000000 | 2.9936 |
640 | 0.026748 | 0.9970 | 0.000030 | 1.9963 | 0.000000 | 2.9968 | 0.000000 | 2.9968 |
1280 | 0.013388 | 0.9985 | 0.000008 | 1.9982 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 | 0.000000 | 2.9984 |
2560 | 0.006697 | 0.9992 | 0.000002 | 1.9991 | 0.000000 | 2.9992 | 0.000000 | 2.9992 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
Year(t) | nLinear | nFrac | nEM | Error | nIEM | Error | nRK3 | Error |
1920 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 |
1930 | 2.1289×103 | 1.9909×103 | 1.9799×103 | 1.1060×101 | 1.9892×103 | 1.7315×100 | 1.9906×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1940 | 2.4366×103 | 2.2169×103 | 2.2020×103 | 1.4921×101 | 2.2152×103 | 1.7413×100 | 2.2166×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1950 | 2.7888×103 | 2.5173×103 | 2.4987×103 | 1.8625×101 | 2.5156×103 | 1.7390×100 | 2.5170×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1960 | 3.1919×103 | 2.8943×103 | 2.8717×103 | 2.2615×101 | 2.8926×103 | 1.7320×100 | 2.8940×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1970 | 3.6533×103 | 3.3561×103 | 3.3290×103 | 2.7117×101 | 3.3544×103 | 1.7219×100 | 3.3558×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1980 | 4.1814×103 | 3.9147×103 | 3.8824×103 | 3.2308×101 | 3.9130×103 | 1.7090×100 | 3.9144×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1990 | 4.7858×103 | 4.5858×103 | 4.5474×103 | 3.8363×101 | 4.5841×103 | 1.6930×100 | 4.5855×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2000 | 5.4775×103 | 5.3885×103 | 5.3431×103 | 4.5471×101 | 5.3869×103 | 1.6737×100 | 5.3882×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2010 | 6.2693×103 | 6.3462×103 | 6.2923×103 | 5.3847×101 | 6.3445×103 | 1.6505×100 | 6.3459×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2020 | 7.1755×103 | 7.4865×103 | 7.4228×103 | 6.3739×101 | 7.4849×103 | 1.6229×100 | 7.4862×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
Year(t) | nLinear | nFrac | nEM | Error | nIEM | Error | nSSRK3 | Error |
1920 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 | 1.8600×103 | 0.0000×100 |
1930 | 2.1289×103 | 1.9909×103 | 1.9799×103 | 1.1060×101 | 1.9892×103 | 1.7315×100 | 1.9906×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1940 | 2.4366×103 | 2.2169×103 | 2.2020×103 | 1.4921×101 | 2.2152×103 | 1.7413×100 | 2.2166×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1950 | 2.7888×103 | 2.5173×103 | 2.4987×103 | 1.8625×101 | 2.5156×103 | 1.7390×100 | 2.5170×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1960 | 3.1919×103 | 2.8943×103 | 2.8717×103 | 2.2615×101 | 2.8926×103 | 1.7320×100 | 2.8940×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1970 | 3.6533×103 | 3.3561×103 | 3.3290×103 | 2.7117×101 | 3.3544×103 | 1.7219×100 | 3.3558×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1980 | 4.1814×103 | 3.9147×103 | 3.8824×103 | 3.2308×101 | 3.9130×103 | 1.7090×100 | 3.9144×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
1990 | 4.7858×103 | 4.5858×103 | 4.5474×103 | 3.8363×101 | 4.5841×103 | 1.6930×100 | 4.5855×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2000 | 5.4775×103 | 5.3885×103 | 5.3431×103 | 4.5471×101 | 5.3869×103 | 1.6737×100 | 5.3882×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2010 | 6.2693×103 | 6.3462×103 | 6.2923×103 | 5.3847×101 | 6.3445×103 | 1.6505×100 | 6.3459×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
2020 | 7.1755×103 | 7.4865×103 | 7.4228×103 | 6.3739×101 | 7.4849×103 | 1.6229×100 | 7.4862×103 | 3.1405×10−1 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | RK3 | |||||
Time(sec) | NLinear | NFrac | NEM | Error | NIEM | Error | NRK3 | Error |
0.00 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 |
50.00 | 655.289312 | 551.999494 | 560.334119 | 8.334625 | 552.321059 | 0.321565 | 552.160287 | 0.160792 |
100.00 | 357.836735 | 326.316340 | 336.069553 | 9.753213 | 326.689759 | 0.373419 | 326.503032 | 0.186692 |
150.00 | 195.405490 | 225.162844 | 234.125085 | 8.962241 | 225.505641 | 0.342797 | 225.334224 | 0.171379 |
200.00 | 106.705941 | 164.801057 | 172.792163 | 7.991106 | 165.105400 | 0.304344 | 164.953198 | 0.152142 |
250.00 | 58.269386 | 127.698306 | 134.676180 | 6.977874 | 127.963163 | 0.264857 | 127.830699 | 0.132393 |
300.00 | 31.819421 | 103.296152 | 109.401183 | 6.105030 | 103.527234 | 0.231082 | 103.411656 | 0.115504 |
350.00 | 17.375772 | 86.385264 | 91.765128 | 5.379864 | 86.588438 | 0.203174 | 86.486814 | 0.101550 |
400.00 | 9.488465 | 74.133931 | 78.920527 | 4.786596 | 74.314379 | 0.180448 | 74.224118 | 0.090188 |
450.00 | 5.181408 | 64.921999 | 69.222799 | 4.300800 | 65.083905 | 0.161906 | 65.002917 | 0.080918 |
500.00 | 2.829434 | 57.777720 | 61.677770 | 3.900050 | 57.924374 | 0.146654 | 57.851014 | 0.073294 |
Analytical | EM | IEM | SSRK3 | |||||
Time(sec) | NLinear | NFrac | NEM | Error | NIEM | Error | NSSRK3 | Error |
0.00 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 | 1200.000000 | 0.000000 |
50.00 | 655.289312 | 551.999494 | 560.334119 | 8.334625 | 552.321059 | 0.321565 | 552.015574 | 0.016080 |
100.00 | 357.836735 | 326.316340 | 336.069553 | 9.753213 | 326.689759 | 0.373419 | 326.335008 | 0.018668 |
150.00 | 195.405490 | 225.162844 | 234.125085 | 8.962241 | 225.505641 | 0.342797 | 225.179981 | 0.017136 |
200.00 | 106.705941 | 164.801057 | 172.792163 | 7.991106 | 165.105400 | 0.304344 | 164.816268 | 0.015211 |
250.00 | 58.269386 | 127.698306 | 134.676180 | 6.977874 | 127.963163 | 0.264857 | 127.711542 | 0.013236 |
300.00 | 31.819421 | 103.296152 | 109.401183 | 6.105030 | 103.527234 | 0.231082 | 103.307699 | 0.011547 |
350.00 | 17.375772 | 86.385264 | 91.765128 | 5.379864 | 86.588438 | 0.203174 | 86.395416 | 0.010152 |
400.00 | 9.488465 | 74.133931 | 78.920527 | 4.786596 | 74.314379 | 0.180448 | 74.142946 | 0.009015 |
450.00 | 5.181408 | 64.921999 | 69.222799 | 4.300800 | 65.083905 | 0.161906 | 64.930088 | 0.008089 |
500.00 | 2.829434 | 57.777720 | 61.677770 | 3.900050 | 57.924374 | 0.146654 | 57.785046 | 0.007326 |