A comparison between numerical solutions to fractional differential equations: Adams-type predictor-corrector and multi-step generalized differential transform method

In this note, two numerical methods of solving fractional differential equations (FDEs) are briefly described, namely predictor-corrector approach of Adams-Bashforth-Moulton type and multi-step generalized differential transform method (MSGDTM), and then a demonstrating example is given to compare the results of the methods. It is shown that the MSGDTM, which is an enhancement of the generalized differential transform method, neglects the effect of non-local structure of fractional differentiation operators and fails to accurately solve the FDEs over large domains.Comment: 12 pages, 2 figure

Status of the differential transformation method

Further to a recent controversy on whether the differential transformation method (DTM) for solving a differential equation is purely and solely the traditional Taylor series method, it is emphasized that the DTM is currently used, often only, as a technique for (analytically) calculating the power series of the solution (in terms of the initial value parameters). Sometimes, a piecewise analytic continuation process is implemented either in a numerical routine (e.g., within a shooting method) or in a semi-analytical procedure (e.g., to solve a boundary value problem). Emphasized also is the fact that, at the time of its invention, the currently-used basic ingredients of the DTM (that transform a differential equation into a difference equation of same order that is iteratively solvable) were already known for a long time by the "traditional"-Taylor-method users (notably in the elaboration of software packages --numerical routines-- for automatically solving ordinary differential equations). At now, the defenders of the DTM still ignore the, though much better developed, studies of the "traditional"-Taylor-method users who, in turn, seem to ignore similarly the existence of the DTM. The DTM has been given an apparent strong formalization (set on the same footing as the Fourier, Laplace or Mellin transformations). Though often used trivially, it is easily attainable and easily adaptable to different kinds of differentiation procedures. That has made it very attractive. Hence applications to various problems of the Taylor method, and more generally of the power series method (including noninteger powers) has been sketched. It seems that its potential has not been exploited as it could be. After a discussion on the reasons of the "misunderstandings" which have caused the controversy, the preceding topics are concretely illustrated.Comment: To appear in Applied Mathematics and Computation, 29 pages, references and further considerations adde