Moreover, Table 6 displays a comparison between the errors obtained by the application of GJCOMM with the method developed in [37] for the case (N=2).
Figure 2 Comparison between the errors obtained by the application of GJCOMM for (pmb{N=6}), for different choices to the selected collocation points.
Table 4 displays a comparison between the errors obtained by the application of GJCOMM for (N=4), with the errors resulting from the application of the three methods developed in [36, 37].
This comparison ascertains that our results are more accurate than those obtained in [36, 37]. Figure 1 Comparison between the errors obtained by the application of GJCOMM for (pmb{N=4}), for different choices to the selected collocation points.
In Table 7, the maximum absolute error E is listed for various values of N, and in Table 8, we give a comparison between the best errors obtained by various methods used to solve Example 5.
Table 1 lists the maximum absolute errors E, which resulted from the application of GJGOMM, for various values of N, while in Table 2 we display a comparison between the relative errors obtained by the application of the two methods namely, the first-order method (1OM) and the second-order methods (2OMs) developed in [35] with the relative errors resulting from the application of GJGOMM.
σ b 2 and σ w 2 were estimated from the between-strain and within-strain mean squared errors obtained by single-factor ANOVA.
Error bars are standard errors obtained by bootstrap with 200 resamplings of the data.
Table 5 exhibits a comparison between the error obtained by using BGM, BPGM, and Sinc-Galerkin in [21], septic splines in [23] and modified decomposition in [24].
In Table 3, a comparison between the error obtained by using BGM, BPGM, the sinc-Galerkin, and modified decomposition methods (see, [21]) is displayed.
