In[9]:=
Plot
Evaluate
Table
Derivative
2
BumpPower
power
x
,
power, 1, 12
,
x, 0, 1
, Filling
Axis, PlotRange
Full,PlotLabel
"Second derivative of increasing powers"
Out[9]=
0.20.40.60.81.0
20
101020
Secondderivativeofincreasingpowers
Spot checking a few powers suggests that low powers best control the second derivative.
In[10]:=
MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative
n_, d_
:
N
MaxValue
Abs
Derivative
d
BumpPower
n
x
, x
In[11]:=
Table
MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative
n, d
,
d, 0, 5
,
n, 1, 7
MatrixForm
Out[11]//MatrixForm=
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1.2.17036 1.91156 1.98514 2.11782 2.26213 2.40592 2.5456521.0659 10.2802 8.36423 8.06356 10. 12. 14.506.688 127.416 73.0156 57.093 51.8527 62.4822 75.872222604.9 2881.99 1129.32 687.778 534.214 542.248 595.2881.62107
10
6
103571. 29124.4 14355.1 9722.52 8005.8 7479.46
The table suggests that taking a power near four will optimally control the first and second derivative. Attempting tominimize the derivative absolute magnitudes shows the following continous power-dependence:
In[12]:=
Plot
MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative
n, 1
, MagnitudeBumpPowerDerivative
n, 2
,
n, 3, 5
, PlotRange
All,
0, Full
,PlotLabel
"First and second derivative versus power taken"
Out[12]=
3.03.54.04.55.0246810
Firstandsecondderivativeversuspowertaken
Going to a non-integer power seems to buy very little benefit for the extra computational cost. The integer power 4seems to be a reasonable tradeoff between the first and second derivative’s maximum absolute magnitudes.
BumpFunctionPowers.nb
3
Leave a Comment