Skip to main content

simplifying expressions - Mathematica performs insufficient or too slow or too memory consuming simplification


Using Mathematica 10,


Simplify[Sqrt[Sin[x]^6 ((a^2 + r[]^2)^2 - 

a^2 (q^2 + a^2 - 2 m r[] + r[]^2) Sin[x]^2)^2]/((a^2 +
a^2 Cos[2 x] + 2 r[]^2)^2 (-a^2 q^2 + a^4 +
2 m a^2 r[] + 3 a^2 r[]^2 + 2 r[]^4 + a^2 Cos[2 x] (q^2 + a^2 - 2 m r[] + r[]^2))),
Assumptions -> {(a^2 + r[]^2)^2 - a^2 (q^2 + a^2 - 2 m r[] +
r[]^2) Sin[x]^2 > 0}]

yields the weird expression: $$\begin{cases} \frac{\sin ^3(x)}{2 \left(a^2 \cos (2 x)+a^2+2r()^2\right)^2} & \sin (x)\geq 0 \\ -\frac{\sin ^3(x)}{2 \left(a^2 \cos (2 x)+a^2+2r()^2\right)^2} & \text{True} \\ \end{cases}.$$ If I add the assumption $0 \leq x \leq \pi$, then the result becomes: $$\begin{cases} \frac{\sin ^3(x)}{2 \left(a^2 \cos (2 x)+a^2+2r()^2\right)^2} & a^2 (a^2+q^2 -2 m r() +r^2) \sin^2(x)\leq (a^2 + r()^2)^2\\ -\frac{\sin ^3(x)}{2 \left(a^2 \cos (2 x)+a^2+2r()^2\right)^2} & \text{True} \\ \end{cases},$$ in which the first conditional is actually the first assumption! The correct result is of course the first without the extra conditional.


What does the "True" conditional mean? Why is the second result still not sufficiently simplified?


Another example (2):


Simplify[Conjugate[a + I Cos[θ] r], Assumptions -> {a > 0, θ > 0, r > 0}]


yields Conjugate[a + I r Cos[θ]]. If I attempt simplification of each part in the sum, the result is the expected one!


Simplify seems to be a extremely sensitive to input. Is there any advice to work around these issues?


Another example (3):


Is it possible to make FullSimplify apply only to expressions that include Conjugate, so that the expression can be simplified quickly? I have a long expression and only simplification of the Conjugate is necessary; FullSimplify on the full expression takes more than an hour. Any ideas?


Solution The fastest way (mere seconds) I could find to simplify an expression enclosed in Conjugate is to define the expression as Map[Simplify[Conjugate[#]]&, expr,{-1}]. This has the drawback that the simplified Conjugate is mapped only on "objects that have no subparts", according to the documentation, which suits my purpose fine at the moment.


Another example (4):


When trying to simplify a very long expression, Simplify and FullSimplify cache intermediate results of the simplification in order to speed up the process, but this has certain disadvantages:



  1. Long expressions tend to create extremely big caches, which is apparent as the memory size of the kernel reaches many GB and is never released after the simplification is aborted.


  2. The result changes depending on the cache created earlier, which reduces the determinism of the process.

  3. The cache created earlier may cause next simplifications to last too long for various reasons.


Is there a way to disable or control the cache created by Simplify and FullSimplify?




Comments

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....