Research PapersNo Access

On the exact and numerical solutions to the FitzHugh–Nagumo equation

Asıf Yokus

Department of Actuary, Firat University, 23100 Elazig, Turkey

https://doi.org/10.1142/S0217979220501490Cited by:27 (Source: Crossref)

Abstract

In this paper, with the help of a computer package program, the auto-Bäcklund transformation method (aBTM) and the finite forward difference method are used for obtaining the wave solutions and the numeric and exact approximations to the FitzHugh–Nagumo (F-N) equation, respectively. We successfully obtain some wave solutions to this equation by using aBTM. We then employ the finite difference method (FDM) in approximating the exact and numerical solutions to this equation by taking one of the obtained wave solutions into consideration. We also present the comparison between exact and numeric approximations and support the comparison with a graphic plot. Moreover, the Fourier von-Neumann stability analysis is used in checking the stability of the numeric scheme. We also present the $L_{2}$ and $L_{\infty}$ error norms of the solutions to this equation.

Keywords:

PACS: 02.30.Jr, 02.60.−x, 02.60.Cb

You currently do not have access to the full text article.
Recommend the journal to your library today!

References

1. G. Hariharan and K. Kannan, Int. J. Math. Comput. Sci. 4, 909 (2010). Google Scholar
2. E. G. Fan, Phys. Lett. A 265, 353 (2000). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
3. M. J. Ablowitz and P. A. Clarkson, Solitons, Nonlinear Evolution Equations and Inverse Scattering (Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 1991). Crossref, Google Scholar
4. J. Nagumo, S. Arimoto and S. Yoshizawa, Proc. IRE 50, 2061 (1962). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
5. R. Fitzhugh, Biophys. J. 1, 445 (1961). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
6. T. Ozis and I. Aslan, Verlag der Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung, 16–20 (2009). Google Scholar
7. P. Veeresha et al., Chaos, Solitons Fractals 133, 109661 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
8. E. P. Zemskov and I. R. Epstein, Phys. Rev. 82, 026207 (2010). ADS, Google Scholar
9. M. A. E. Abdelrahman and M. M. A. Khater, Int. J. Comput. Appl. 113, 1 (2015). Google Scholar
10. H. Li and Y. Guo, Appl. Math. Comput. 180, 524 (2006). Web of Science, Google Scholar
11. H. Durur, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 2050036 (2019). Google Scholar
12. H. F. Ismael, H. Bulut and H. M. Baskonus, Pramana 94, 35 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
13. J. Manafian and M. Lakestani, Int. J. Eng. Math. 2015, 107978 (2015). Crossref, Google Scholar
14. P. Broadbridge and B. H. Bradshaw-Hajek, Zeitschrift fur angewandte mathematik und physik 67, 1 (2016). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
15. S. S. Nourazar and A. Nazar-Golshan, (2016). https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.4272908.v1 Google Scholar
16. A. A. Soliman, Abstract Appl. Anal. 2012, 762516 (2012). Google Scholar
17. M. Namjoo and S. Zibaei, Comput. Appl. Math. (2016), https://doi.org/10.1007/s40314-016-0406-9. Google Scholar
18. R. Jiwari, R. K. Gupta and V. Kumar, Ain Shams Eng. J. 5, 1343 (2014). Crossref, Google Scholar
19. D. Olmos and B. D. Shizgal, Math. Comput. Simul. 79, 2258 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
20. Y. Pandir and Y. A. Tandogan, AIP Conf. Proc. 1558, 1919 (2013). Crossref, ADS, Google Scholar
21. A. Biswas, Nonlinear Dyn. 58, 345 (2009). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
22. C. Cattani et al., Opt. Quant. Electron. 50, 138 (2018). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
23. P. Agarwal et al., Phys. A. Stat. Mech. Appl. 122769 (2019). Google Scholar
24. H. Durur and A. Yokuş, Afyon Kocatepe Üniversitesi Fen Ve Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi 19, 615. Google Scholar
25. A. Yokuş and H. Durur, Balıkesir Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 21, 590 (2019). Crossref, Google Scholar
26. W. Gao et al., Phys. A. Stat. Mech. Appl. 123772 (2019). Google Scholar
27. H. Durur et al., Erzincan Üniversitesi Fen Bilimleri Enstitüsü Dergisi 12, 796. Crossref, Google Scholar
28. I. Aziz and M. Asif, Comput. Math. Appl. 73, 2023 (2017). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
29. I. Aziz, Differ. Eqs. Dyn. Syst. 25, 347 (2017). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
30. I. Aziz, A. S. Al-Fhaid and A. Shah, Appl. Math. Model. 37, 9455 (2013). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
31. A. Yokus, Truncation and Convergence Dynamics: KdV Burgers Model in the Sense of Caputo Derivative (in press). Google Scholar
32. A. Yokuş, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 32, 1850365 (2018). Link, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
33. T. A. Sulaiman and H. Bulut, Commun. Theor. Phys. 72, 025003 (2020). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar
34. T. A. Sulaiman and H. Bulut, Int. J. Mod. Phys. B 33, 1950370 (2019). Link, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
35. T. A. Sulaiman, G. Yel and H. Bulut, Mod. Phys. Lett. B 33, 1950052 (2019). Link, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
36. H. Rezazadeh et al., Mod. Phys. Lett. B 33, 1950196 (2019). Link, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
37. D. Kaya, A. Yokuş and U. Demiroğlu, Comparison of exact and numerical solutions for the Sharma–Tasso–Olver equation, in Numerical Solutions of Realistic Nonlinear Phenomena (Springer, Cham, 2020), pp. 53–65. Crossref, Google Scholar
38. E. Fan, Phys. Lett. A 294, 26 (2002). Crossref, Web of Science, ADS, Google Scholar
39. A. Yokus et al., Numer. Meth. Partial Differ. Eq. 34, 211 (2018). Crossref, Web of Science, Google Scholar