Matched asymptotic expansions
Compare inner and outer limits in a shared overlap and subtract their common part when constructing a composite approximation.
On this page
The question for today
What you’ll understand
- Identify an overlap scaling satisfying both local descriptions.
- Construct a composite approximation without double-counting its common part.
- Separate successful formal matching from a proved uniform error estimate.
Inner and outer approximations describe the same solution from different scales. Matching is the compatibility condition that allows them to be joined. Simply adding them double-counts the behavior they share, while patching at an arbitrary point can leave a discontinuity or an uncontrolled error. A composite approximation adds the local descriptions and subtracts their common overlap expression. This construction is systematic, but its accuracy must still be justified for the actual equation. A forced linear problem makes both the matching algebra and a uniform error certificate explicit.
Compare limits in a genuinely shared region
Consider with both endpoint values zero. The outer equation is , and the right endpoint selects . Near the left boundary use . The transformed equation is , so its leading homogeneous solution with the left value zero can be matched to a constant. The large-inner-coordinate limit must equal the small-position limit of the outer solution.
The common leading value is minus one, so the inner solution is . An overlap has small original position but large inner coordinate. For with any fixed exponent strictly between zero and one, both requirements hold. The outer correction to minus one is , while the inner exponential is , tending to zero faster than any algebraic power. This explicit scaling makes the matching domain visible instead of comparing two limits at incompatible fixed coordinates.
Subtract the shared behavior
The leading composite is the sum of outer and inner functions, expressed in the same original coordinate, minus their common constant. It therefore becomes . At the left endpoint the terms cancel exactly, while far from the layer the exponential disappears and the outer behavior remains. If the common part were not subtracted, the approximation would be displaced by an order-one constant throughout the overlap. Higher-order matching can involve polynomials, logarithms, or several shared terms rather than only a constant.
One can derive an exact solution here by first solving the first-order equation for the derivative and integrating. This supplies a check independent of the formal matching procedure. The exact solution is . Comparing it with the composite shows an exponentially small uniform error. The striking accuracy is a feature of this equation and retained terms, not a theorem that every leading composite has exponentially small error.
Match the approximation and audit its scope
At higher order, re-expanding an inner expression in outer variables and an outer expression in inner variables helps identify which shared terms must be removed. The limits should be taken in an overlap where both retained hierarchies are ordered; terms small in one fixed-coordinate limit can become large after rescaling. A formal matching condition can determine constants while leaving a genuine proof of a uniform remainder open. Record the order retained in each region rather than claiming that two expressions match merely because their leading constants agree.
A residual audit checks the differential equation, each boundary condition, and any junction regularity. A stability estimate then converts those defects into an error bound in the desired norm. Several layers, turning points, or nonlinear instabilities may require more than one inner region or may leave no overlap for the initially chosen scales. Such failures are diagnostic: revise the scaling or the asymptotic form instead of forcing a composite from incompatible pieces. The usefulness of matching comes from preserving the relationship between regions, not from hiding a boundary mismatch in a plot.
Work it through
Check a composite in the interior and at the boundary
For the forced unit-interval problem, take . Compute the leading composite at and its maximum absolute error over the whole interval.
The shared overlap value is , so the composite is rather than .
At the midpoint it gives . Its left endpoint is exactly zero; at the right endpoint its mismatch is .
Subtracting the exact solution gives with . Its magnitude increases to , hence the exact maximum error is approximately .
The common-part subtraction restores the correct order-one level, and the exact comparison proves a uniform error about two billionths for this example.
The living notebook
Explore the model
Interactive lab · heat
Reconstruct a composite from its decaying inner factor
Take . Reset and set both mode and diffusivity , then Step twice. Interpret time one as the inner coordinate : the normalized amplitude is and the original position is . Predict composite value . Reset and set both , then Step four times to ; predict . Divide the spatial norm by to recover the factor. This heat amplitude represents only the inner exponential, not the whole boundary-value solution.
- Current amplitude
- 1
- Spatial L² norm
- 1.772
- Decay rate · κn²
- 3.6 /s
The exact periodic heat-equation mode is u(x,t) = exp(−κn²t) sin(nx), on [0,2π]. Playback advances physical time. The initial sine is shown separately, and the unnormalized L² norm is √π exp(−κn²t). This analytic instrument does not run a finite-difference solver or test discretization stability. Parameter changes pause playback and recompute the model at the current elapsed time. Reset restores both parameters and returns time to zero. Playback starts paused. Adjust either parameter, then choose Play or Step.
Look forCombine the slow outer value with the inner correction while removing their common part.
Pause & reason
Check your understanding
Your turn
Try it yourself
For the forced problem at , someone proposes . Identify the missing matching correction, evaluate the left endpoint defect, and give the correct composite's uniform error.
Take a moment to make a prediction or work it out on paper. Open a hint when you need one.
Give me a hint
The proposed expression is a raw sum of the inner and outer approximations. Their common constant is minus one.
Compare with the solution
Subtracting the common constant means adding one to the proposal, yielding . The uncorrected proposal has instead of zero, an order-one defect. The corrected composite has exact maximum error in this particular equation, as follows from its exact solution.
Keep the idea
Take it with you
- Matching compares asymptotic descriptions in a region shared by both scales.
- A composite subtracts the common part to avoid double-counting.
- Formal compatibility and a quantitative uniform error theorem require different evidence.
Read further
Original sources and deeper explanations to follow at your own pace.
Optional progress, saved in this browser when available. Revisit any lesson at any time.
Lesson not marked complete.