Related
I would like Mathematica to evaluate square root of a squared variable. Instead it is just returning the squared variable under square root. I wrote a simple code as an example:
x = y^2
z = FullSimplify[Sqrt[x]]
But it is returning y^2 under a square root sign!
This behavior is documented on the Sqrt reference page:
Sqrt[z^2] is not automatically converted to z.
[…]
These conversions can be done using PowerExpand, but will typically be correct only for positive real arguments.
Thus:
In[1]:= x = y^2
Out[1]= y^2
In[15]:= PowerExpand[Sqrt[x]]
Out[15]= y
You can also get simplifications by supplying various assumptions:
In[10]:= Simplify[Sqrt[x], Assumptions -> Element[y, Reals]]
Out[10]= Abs[y]
In[13]:= Simplify[Sqrt[x], Assumptions -> y > 0]
Out[13]= y
In[14]:= Simplify[Sqrt[x], Assumptions -> y < 0]
Out[14]= -y
If you want more help, I suggest asking on the Mathematica Stack Exchange.
Hi I am trying to solve a linear system of equations with mathematica. I have 18 equations and 18 Unknowns and the coefficient matrix has full rank. All entries are symbolic since I am trying to solve the problem analytically. Unfortunately Mathematica never stops the evaluation. I have prepared a minimal working example:
n = 18
A = Table[AA[i, j], {i, 1, n}, {j, 1, n}];
A // MatrixForm
x = Table[xx[i], {i, 1, n}]
b = Table[bb[i], {i, 1, n}]
MatrixRank[A]
sol = Timing[Solve[{A.x == b}, x, Reals]]
A.x == b //. sol[[2]][[1]] // Simplify
For n=2,3,4,.. all works perfectly well. But with n=10... nothing works anymore.
Why has mathematica such problems solving this?
Is there a way to solve this problem?
Thanks for help,
Andreas
You simply need more memory:
The symbolic solution involves n+1 determinants, here is an estimate of the memory needed.
bc[n_] := (A = Det[Array[a, {n, n}]];ByteCount[A])
ListLogPlot[
t = Table[ {n, (n + 1) bc[n] /1024^3 // N} , {n,2,10}], Joined -> True]
extrapolating to n=18 we can see you'll need only about 10^8 Gigabytes..
(thats 1000x more than the largest supercomputers for anyone not getting the point )
I am trying to get Mathematica to approximate an integral that is a function of various parameters. I don't need it to be extremely precise -- the answer will be a fraction, and 5 digits would be nice, but I'd settle for as few as 2.
The problem is that there is a symbolic integral buried in the main integral, and I can't use NIntegrate on it since its symbolic.
F[x_, c_] := (1 - (1 - x)^c)^c;
a[n_, c_, x_] := F[a[n - 1, c, x], c];
a[0, c_, x_] = x;
MyIntegral[n_,c_] :=
NIntegrate[Integrate[(D[a[n,c,y],y]*y)/(1-a[n,c,x]),{y,x,1}],{x,0,1}]
Mathematica starts hanging when n is greater than 2 and c is greater than 3 or so (generally as both n and c get a little higher).
Are there any tricks for rewriting this expression so that it can be evaluated more easily? I've played with different WorkingPrecision and AccuracyGoal and PrecisionGoal options on the outer NIntegrate, but none of that helps the inner integral, which is where the problem is. In fact, for the higher values of n and c, I can't even get Mathematica to expand the inner derivative, i.e.
Expand[D[a[4,6,y],y]]
hangs.
I am using Mathematica 8 for Students.
If anyone has any tips for how I can get M. to approximate this, I would appreciate it.
Since you only want a numerical output (or that's what you'll get anyway), you can convert the symbolic integration into a numerical one using just NIntegrate as follows:
Clear[a,myIntegral]
a[n_Integer?Positive, c_Integer?Positive, x_] :=
a[n, c, x] = (1 - (1 - a[n - 1, c, x])^c)^c;
a[0, c_Integer, x_] = x;
myIntegral[n_, c_] :=
NIntegrate[D[a[n, c, y], y]*y/(1 - a[n, c, x]), {x, 0, 1}, {y, x, 1},
WorkingPrecision -> 200, PrecisionGoal -> 5]
This is much faster than performing the integration symbolically. Here's a comparison:
yoda:
myIntegral[2,2]//Timing
Out[1]= {0.088441, 0.647376595...}
myIntegral[5,2]//Timing
Out[2]= {1.10486, 0.587502888...}
rcollyer:
MyIntegral[2,2]//Timing
Out[3]= {1.0029, 0.647376}
MyIntegral[5,2]//Timing
Out[4]= {27.1697, 0.587503006...}
(* Obtained with WorkingPrecision->500, PrecisionGoal->5, MaxRecursion->20 *)
Jand's function has timings similar to rcollyer's. Of course, as you increase n, you will have to increase your WorkingPrecision way higher than this, as you've experienced in your previous question. Since you said you only need about 5 digits of precision, I've explicitly set PrecisionGoal to 5. You can change this as per your needs.
To codify the comments, I'd try the following. First, to eliminate infinite recursion with regards to the variable, n, I'd rewrite your functions as
F[x_, c_] := (1 - (1-x)^c)^c;
(* see note below *)
a[n_Integer?Positive, c_, x_] := F[a[n - 1, c, x], c];
a[0, c_, x_] = x;
that way n==0 will actually be a stopping point. The ?Positive form is a PatternTest, and useful for applying additional conditions to the parameters. I suspect the issue is that NIntegrate is re-evaluating the inner Integrate for every value of x, so I'd pull that evaluation out, like
MyIntegral[n_,c_] :=
With[{ int = Integrate[(D[a[n,c,y],y]*y)/(1-a[n,c,x]),{y,x,1}] },
NIntegrate[int,{x,0,1}]
]
where With is one of several scoping constructs specifically for creating local constants.
Your comments indicate that the inner integral takes a long time, have you tried simplifying the integrand as it is a derivative of a times a function of a? It seems like the result of a chain rule expansion to me.
Note: as per Yoda's suggestion in the comments, you can add a cacheing, or memoization, mechanism to a. Change its definition to
d:a[n_Integer?Positive, c_, x_] := d = F[a[n - 1, c, x], c];
The trick here is that in d:a[ ... ], d is a named pattern that is used again in d = F[...] cacheing the value of a for those particular parameter values.
I have a basic problem in Mathematica which has puzzled me for a while. I want to take the m'th derivative of x*Exp[t*x], then evaluate this at x=0. But the following does not work correct. Please share your thoughts.
D[x*Exp[t*x], {x, m}] /. x -> 0
Also what does the error mean
General::ivar: 0 is not a valid variable.
Edit: my previous example (D[Exp[t*x], {x, m}] /. x -> 0) was trivial. So I made it harder. :)
My question is: how to force it to do the derivative evaluation first, then do substitution.
As pointed out by others, (in general) Mathematica does not know how to take the derivative an arbitrary number of times, even if you specify that number is a positive integer.
This means that the D[expr,{x,m}] command remains unevaluated and then when you set x->0, it's now trying to take the derivative with respect to a constant, which yields the error message.
In general, what you want is the m'th derivative of the function evaluated at zero.
This can be written as
Derivative[m][Function[x,x Exp[t x]]][0]
or
Derivative[m][# Exp[t #]&][0]
You then get the table of coefficients
In[2]:= Table[%, {m, 1, 10}]
Out[2]= {1, 2 t, 3 t^2, 4 t^3, 5 t^4, 6 t^5, 7 t^6, 8 t^7, 9 t^8, 10 t^9}
But a little more thought shows that you really just want the m'th term in the series, so SeriesCoefficient does what you want:
In[3]:= SeriesCoefficient[x*Exp[t*x], {x, 0, m}]
Out[3]= Piecewise[{{t^(-1 + m)/(-1 + m)!, m >= 1}}, 0]
The final output is the general form of the m'th derivative. The PieceWise is not really necessary, since the expression actually holds for all non-negative integers.
Thanks to your update, it's clear what's happening here. Mathematica doesn't actually calculate the derivative; you then replace x with 0, and it ends up looking at this:
D[Exp[t*0],{0,m}]
which obviously is going to run into problems, since 0 isn't a variable.
I'll assume that you want the mth partial derivative of that function w.r.t. x. The t variable suggests that it might be a second independent variable.
It's easy enough to do without Mathematica: D[Exp[t*x], {x, m}] = t^m Exp[t*x]
And if you evaluate the limit as x approaches zero, you get t^m, since lim(Exp[t*x]) = 1. Right?
Update: Let's try it for x*exp(t*x)
the mth partial derivative w.r.t. x is easily had from Wolfram Alpha:
t^(m-1)*exp(t*x)(t*x + m)
So if x = 0 you get m*t^(m-1).
Q.E.D.
Let's see what is happening with a little more detail:
When you write:
D[Sin[x], {x, 1}]
you get an expression in with x in it
Cos[x]
That is because the x in the {x,1} part matches the x in the Sin[x] part, and so Mma understands that you want to make the derivative for that symbol.
But this x, does NOT act as a Block variable for that statement, isolating its meaning from any other x you have in your program, so it enables the chain rule. For example:
In[85]:= z=x^2;
D[Sin[z],{x,1}]
Out[86]= 2 x Cos[x^2]
See? That's perfect! But there is a price.
The price is that the symbols inside the derivative get evaluated as the derivative is taken, and that is spoiling your code.
Of course there are a lot of tricks to get around this. Some have already been mentioned. From my point of view, one clear way to undertand what is happening is:
f[x_] := x*Exp[t*x];
g[y_, m_] := D[f[x], {x, m}] /. x -> y;
{g[p, 2], g[0, 1]}
Out:
{2 E^(p t) t + E^(p t) p t^2, 1}
HTH!
I'm trying to figure out how to use Mathematica to solve systems of equations where some of the variables and coefficients are vectors. A simple example would be something like
where I know A, V, and the magnitude of P, and I have to solve for t and the direction of P. (Basically, given two rays A and B, where I know everything about A but only the origin and magnitude of B, figure out what the direction of B must be such that it intersects A.)
Now, I know how to solve this sort of thing by hand, but that's slow and error-prone, so I was hoping I could use Mathematica to speed things along and error-check me. However, I can't see how to get Mathematica to symbolically solve equations involving vectors like this.
I've looked in the VectorAnalysis package, without finding anything there that seems relevant; meanwhile the Linear Algebra package only seems to have a solver for linear systems (which this isn't, since I don't know t or P, just |P|).
I tried doing the simpleminded thing: expanding the vectors into their components (pretend they're 3D) and solving them as if I were trying to equate two parametric functions,
Solve[
{ Function[t, {Bx + Vx*t, By + Vy*t, Bz + Vz*t}][t] ==
Function[t, {Px*t, Py*t, Pz*t}][t],
Px^2 + Py^2 + Pz^2 == Q^2 } ,
{ t, Px, Py, Pz }
]
but the "solution" that spits out is a huge mess of coefficients and congestion. It also forces me to expand out each of the dimensions I feed it.
What I want is a nice symbolic solution in terms of dot products, cross products, and norms:
But I can't see how to tell Solve that some of the coefficients are vectors instead of scalars.
Is this possible? Can Mathematica give me symbolic solutions on vectors? Or should I just stick with No.2 Pencil technology?
(Just to be clear, I'm not interested in the solution to the particular equation at top -- I'm asking if I can use Mathematica to solve computational geometry problems like that generally without my having to express everything as an explicit matrix of {Ax, Ay, Az}, etc.)
With Mathematica 7.0.1.0
Clear[A, V, P];
A = {1, 2, 3};
V = {4, 5, 6};
P = {P1, P2, P3};
Solve[A + V t == P, P]
outputs:
{{P1 -> 1 + 4 t, P2 -> 2 + 5 t, P3 -> 3 (1 + 2 t)}}
Typing out P = {P1, P2, P3} can be annoying if the array or matrix is large.
Clear[A, V, PP, P];
A = {1, 2, 3};
V = {4, 5, 6};
PP = Array[P, 3];
Solve[A + V t == PP, PP]
outputs:
{{P[1] -> 1 + 4 t, P[2] -> 2 + 5 t, P[3] -> 3 (1 + 2 t)}}
Matrix vector inner product:
Clear[A, xx, bb];
A = {{1, 5}, {6, 7}};
xx = Array[x, 2];
bb = Array[b, 2];
Solve[A.xx == bb, xx]
outputs:
{{x[1] -> 1/23 (-7 b[1] + 5 b[2]), x[2] -> 1/23 (6 b[1] - b[2])}}
Matrix multiplication:
Clear[A, BB, d];
A = {{1, 5}, {6, 7}};
BB = Array[B, {2, 2}];
d = {{6, 7}, {8, 9}};
Solve[A.BB == d]
outputs:
{{B[1, 1] -> -(2/23), B[2, 1] -> 28/23, B[1, 2] -> -(4/23), B[2, 2] -> 33/23}}
The dot product has an infix notation built in just use a period for the dot.
I do not think the cross product does however. This is how you use the Notation package to make one. "X" will become our infix form of Cross. I suggest coping the example from the Notation, Symbolize and InfixNotation tutorial. Also use the Notation Palette which helps abstract away some of the Box syntax.
Clear[X]
Needs["Notation`"]
Notation[x_ X y_\[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]Cross[x_, y_]]
Notation[NotationTemplateTag[
RowBox[{x_, , X, , y_, }]] \[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]
NotationTemplateTag[RowBox[{ ,
RowBox[{Cross, [,
RowBox[{x_, ,, y_}], ]}]}]]]
{a, b, c} X {x, y, z}
outputs:
{-c y + b z, c x - a z, -b x + a y}
The above looks horrible but when using the Notation Palette it looks like:
Clear[X]
Needs["Notation`"]
Notation[x_ X y_\[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]Cross[x_, y_]]
{a, b, c} X {x, y, z}
I have run into some quirks using the notation package in the past versions of mathematica so be careful.
I don't have a general solution for you by any means (MathForum may be the better way to go), but there are some tips that I can offer you. The first is to do the expansion of your vectors into components in a more systematic way. For instance, I would solve the equation you wrote as follows.
rawSol = With[{coords = {x, y, z}},
Solve[
Flatten[
{A[#] + V[#] t == P[#] t & /# coords,
Total[P[#]^2 & /# coords] == P^2}],
Flatten[{t, P /# coords}]]];
Then you can work with the rawSol variable more easily. Next, because you are referring the vector components in a uniform way (always matching the Mathematica pattern v_[x|y|z]), you can define rules that will aid in simplifying them. I played around a bit before coming up with the following rules:
vectorRules =
{forms___ + vec_[x]^2 + vec_[y]^2 + vec_[z]^2 :> forms + vec^2,
forms___ + c_. v1_[x]*v2_[x] + c_. v1_[y]*v2_[y] + c_. v1_[z]*v2_[z] :>
forms + c v1\[CenterDot]v2};
These rules will simplify the relationships for vector norms and dot products (cross-products are left as a likely painful exercise for the reader). EDIT: rcollyer pointed out that you can make c optional in the rule for dot products, so you only need two rules for norms and dot products.
With these rules, I was immediately able to simplify the solution for t into a form very close to yours:
In[3] := t /. rawSol //. vectorRules // Simplify // InputForm
Out[3] = {(A \[CenterDot] V - Sqrt[A^2*(P^2 - V^2) +
(A \[CenterDot] V)^2])/(P^2 - V^2),
(A \[CenterDot] V + Sqrt[A^2*(P^2 - V^2) +
(A \[CenterDot] V)^2])/(P^2 - V^2)}
Like I said, it's not a complete way of solving these kinds of problems by any means, but if you're careful about casting the problem into terms that are easy to work with from a pattern-matching and rule-replacement standpoint, you can go pretty far.
I've taken a somewhat different approach to this issue. I've made some definitions that return this output:
Patterns that are known to be vector quantities may be specified using vec[_], patterns that have an OverVector[] or OverHat[] wrapper (symbols with a vector or hat over them) are assumed to be vectors by default.
The definitions are experimental and should be treated as such, but they seem to work well. I expect to add to this over time.
Here are the definitions. The need to be pasted into a Mathematica Notebook cell and converted to StandardForm to see them properly.
Unprotect[vExpand,vExpand$,Cross,Plus,Times,CenterDot];
(* vec[pat] determines if pat is a vector quantity.
vec[pat] can be used to define patterns that should be treated as vectors.
Default: Patterns are assumed to be scalar unless otherwise defined *)
vec[_]:=False;
(* Symbols with a vector hat, or vector operations on vectors are assumed to be vectors *)
vec[OverVector[_]]:=True;
vec[OverHat[_]]:=True;
vec[u_?vec+v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?vec-v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?vec\[Cross]v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?VectorQ]:=True;
(* Placeholder for matrix types *)
mat[a_]:=False;
(* Anything not defined as a vector or matrix is a scalar *)
scal[x_]:=!(vec[x]\[Or]mat[x]);
scal[x_?scal+y_?scal]:=True;scal[x_?scal y_?scal]:=True;
(* Scalars times vectors are vectors *)
vec[a_?scal u_?vec]:=True;
mat[a_?scal m_?mat]:=True;
vExpand$[u_?vec\[Cross](v_?vec+w_?vec)]:=vExpand$[u\[Cross]v]+vExpand$[u\[Cross]w];
vExpand$[(u_?vec+v_?vec)\[Cross]w_?vec]:=vExpand$[u\[Cross]w]+vExpand$[v\[Cross]w];
vExpand$[u_?vec\[CenterDot](v_?vec+w_?vec)]:=vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]v]+vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]w];
vExpand$[(u_?vec+v_?vec)\[CenterDot]w_?vec]:=vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]w]+vExpand$[v\[CenterDot]w];
vExpand$[s_?scal (u_?vec\[Cross]v_?vec)]:=Expand[s] vExpand$[u\[Cross]v];
vExpand$[s_?scal (u_?vec\[CenterDot]v_?vec)]:=Expand[s] vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]v];
vExpand$[Plus[x__]]:=vExpand$/#Plus[x];
vExpand$[s_?scal,Plus[x__]]:=Expand[s](vExpand$/#Plus[x]);
vExpand$[Times[x__]]:=vExpand$/#Times[x];
vExpand[e_]:=e//.e:>Expand[vExpand$[e]]
(* Some simplification rules *)
(u_?vec\[Cross]u_?vec):=\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\);
(u_?vec+\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\)):=u;
0v_?vec:=\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\);
\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\)\[CenterDot]v_?vec:=0;
v_?vec\[CenterDot]\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\):=0;
(a_?scal u_?vec)\[Cross]v_?vec :=a u\[Cross]v;u_?vec\[Cross](a_?scal v_?vec ):=a u\[Cross]v;
(a_?scal u_?vec)\[CenterDot]v_?vec :=a u\[CenterDot]v;
u_?vec\[CenterDot](a_?scal v_?vec) :=a u\[CenterDot]v;
(* Stealing behavior from Dot *)
Attributes[CenterDot]=Attributes[Dot];
Protect[vExpand,vExpand$,Cross,Plus,Times,CenterDot];