Skip to main content

bugs - Numerous Extraneous Error Messages from EvaluationData


In the course of solving question 134644, I encountered the message




Reduce::ztest1: Unable to decide whether numeric quantity -Log[5381171456512]+Log[(-Sqrt[101] Log2-10 Sqrt[101] Log[5]+101 (Log[<<1>>]+<<1>>+<<1>>)+Sqrt[101] Log[Plus[<<2>>]])^10/((30100251-2278951 Sqrt[101]) (Log2+10 Log[5]-Log[Plus[<<2>>]])^10)] is equal to zero. Assuming it is.





with the numeric quantity in Short form. To obtain the entire expression, I tried


EvaluationData[Reduce[eq3 /. {m -> 0, n -> 0}, {A, c1, d, k}, Reals]]

along the line of an answer by Szabolcs. Indeed, it provided the desired complete expression. But, it also provided about 125 error messages, all apparently internally generated by EvaluationData. Although the desired quantity can be isolated by


EvaluationData[Reduce[eq3 /. {m -> 0, n -> 0}, {A, c1, d, k}, Reals]]
    ["MessagesExpressions"][[-1, 1, 2]] // ReleaseHold
(* -Log[5381171456512] + Log[(-Sqrt[101] Log[2] - 10 Sqrt[101] Log[5] + 
   101 (Log[2] + 10 Log[5] - Log[30100251 - 2278951 Sqrt[101]]) + 

   Sqrt[101] Log[30100251 - 2278951 Sqrt[101]])^10/((30100251 - 2278951 Sqrt[101]) 
   (Log[2] + 10 Log[5] - Log[30100251 - 2278951 Sqrt[101]])^10)] *)

I do not find this work-around particularly satisfying. Two questions:



  1. Is this undesired EvaluationData behavior a bug? (I believe it is.)

  2. Does an alternative work-around exist, perhaps by instructing Message not to use Short on lengthy expressions.


Edit: Bug apparently fixed in Version 11.1


Reduce no longer produces the warning message given above for Reduce[eq3 /. {m -> 0, n -> 0}, {A, c1, d, k}, Reals], so I could not test



    EvaluationData[Reduce[eq3 /. {m -> 0, n -> 0}, {A, c1, d, k}, Reals]]

on the exact same case. I tried a different case, and it worked fine.



Answer



This does seem like a bug and I'll file a report.


In terms of workarounds, it is possible to avoid the application of Short by something like


Block[{$MessagePrePrint}, 
 ClearSystemCache[]; Reduce[eq3 /. {m -> 0, n -> 0}, Reals] // Simplify]

(note ClearSystemCache[] has been added to make sure the Reduce::ztest1 message is always issued)



and the following uses the testing framework to collect the message


VerificationTest[ClearSystemCache[]; 
  Reduce[eq3 /. {m -> 0, n -> 0}, Reals] // Simplify;, Null]["ActualMessages"]

(* {HoldForm[Message[Reduce::ztest1, HoldForm[-Log[5381171456512] + 
       Log[((-Sqrt[101])*Log[2] - 10*Sqrt[101]*Log[5] + 
          101*(Log[2] + 10*Log[5] - Log[30100251 - 2278951*Sqrt[101]]) + 
          Sqrt[101]*Log[30100251 - 2278951*Sqrt[101]])^10/((30100251 - 
           2278951*Sqrt[101])*(Log[2] + 10*Log[5] - 
            Log[30100251 - 2278951*Sqrt[101]])^10)]]]]} *)

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more