Table 9 Comparison of the numerical results for the second case of Example 4
x | CSM (Ravi and Bhattacharya 2006) | BSM (Çağlar et al. 2009) | BIDM (Khuri and Sayfy 2010) | SGM (Babolian et al. 2015) | Present method |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
0.0 | 1.147041084 | 1.147039937 | 1.147040795 | 1.147039016 | 1.147039019 |
0.1 | 1.146511706 | 1.146510559 | 1.146511419 | 1.146509639 | 1.146509642 |
0.2 | 1.144922563 | 1.144921418 | 1.144922282 | 1.144920499 | 1.144920502 |
0.3 | 1.142270622 | 1.142269478 | 1.142270348 | 1.142268560 | 1.142268563 |
0.4 | 1.138550801 | 1.138549661 | 1.138550539 | 1.138548745 | 1.138548748 |
0.5 | 1.133755950 | 1.133754813 | 1.133755703 | 1.133753900 | 1.133753904 |
0.6 | 1.127876795 | 1.127875663 | 1.127876562 | 1.127874754 | 1.127874756 |
0.7 | 1.120901889 | 1.120900762 | 1.120901665 | 1.120899858 | 1.120899860 |
0.8 | 1.112817535 | 1.112816416 | 1.112817317 | 1.112815517 | 1.112815520 |
0.9 | 1.103607704 | 1.103606593 | 1.103607490 | 1.103605701 | 1.103605704 |
1.0 | 1.093253927 | 1.093252826 | 1.093253716 | 1.093251942 | 1.093251944 |