Skip to main content

equation solving - Q: Problem - FullSimplify returns 0, FindRoot returns value & FindInstance requires system abend


The function at issue:


fa[a_] = 99999.99999999999` (-426.3417145941241` + 2.25` a - 
      2.25` a Erf[
        99999.99999999999` (0.4299932790728411` - 
           0.18257418583505533` Log[a])] + 
      23.714825526419478` Erf[
        99999.99999999999` (0.42999327934670234` - 

           0.18257418583505533` Log[a])]) + 
   9.999999999999998`*^9 a^3.1402269146507883`*^9 E^(
    9.999999999999998`*^9 (-0.36978844033114555` - 
       0.06666666666666667` Log[a]^2)) (a E^(
       1.8749999999999996`*^10 (0.3140226915650789` - 
          0.13333333333333333` Log[a])^2) (0.24259772920294995` - 
         0.10300645387285048` Log[a]) +
      E^(1.8749999999999996`*^10 (-0.3140226913650789` + 
          0.13333333333333333` Log[a])^2) (-2.556961252217486` + 
         1.085680036306589` Log[a]));


Build and plot the function - show it is not always zero and there is one root.


dataa = {#, fa[#]} & /@ Range[1, 1000, 10];
imagea = Plot[fa[a], {a, 0, 400}, Epilog -> {Red, PointSize[0.005], Point[dataa]}];
imagea

Illustration of non zero function


FindRoot is able to find the root - only if searching from above:


FindRoot[fa[a] == 0, {a, 10^10}]



{a -> 100.013}



Show that FullSimplify returns zero - with no warning:


Assuming[a > 0, FullSimplify[fa[a]]]


0.



The following consumes all memory, then thrashes the swap space. The only way to interrupt was: alt+ctl+sysrq+REISUB.



FindInstance[fa[a] == 0 && a > 0, {a}, Reals]

Does anyone observe the same behavior?
Is this expected or should be reported as a bug?


System Information:


SystemInformationData[{"Kernel" -> {
    "Version" -> "11.3.0 for Linux x86 (64-bit) (March 7, 2018)", 
    "ReleaseID" -> "11.3.0.0 (5944640, 2018030701)", 
    "PatchLevel" -> "0", 
    "MachineType" -> "PC", 

    "OperatingSystem" -> "Unix", 
    "ProcessorType" -> "x86-64", 
    "Language" -> "English", 
    "CharacterEncoding" -> "UTF-8", 
    "SystemCharacterEncoding" -> "UTF-8"

...

  "Machine" -> {"MemoryAvailable" -> 
     Quantity[11.852828979492188, "Gibibytes"], 

    "PhysicalUsed" -> Quantity[5.171413421630859, "Gibibytes"], 
    "PhysicalFree" -> Quantity[10.363525390625, "Gibibytes"], 
    "PhysicalTotal" -> Quantity[15.53493881225586, "Gibibytes"], 
    "VirtualUsed" -> Quantity[5.171413421630859, "Gibibytes"], 
    "VirtualFree" -> Quantity[14.234615325927734, "Gibibytes"], 
    "VirtualTotal" -> Quantity[19.406028747558594, "Gibibytes"], 
    "PageSize" -> Quantity[4., "Kibibytes"], 
    "PageUsed" -> Quantity[3.8710899353027344, "Gibibytes"], 
    "PageFree" -> Quantity[0, "Bytes"], 
    "PageTotal" -> Quantity[3.8710899353027344, "Gibibytes"], 

    "Active" -> Quantity[3.342662811279297, "Gibibytes"], 
    "Inactive" -> Quantity[1.4980888366699219, "Gibibytes"], 
    "Cached" -> Quantity[1.8926506042480469, "Gibibytes"], 
    "Buffers" -> Quantity[225.7890625, "Mebibytes"], 
    "SwapReclaimable" -> Quantity[96.015625, "Mebibytes"]}}]

Answer



It seems to me that fa[a] behaves relatively well with respect to FindRoot and plotting but not simplification. That a computation, whether or not it is FindInstance[], might exhaust system resources is unremarkable, but it's likely that an exact-symbolic computation with floating-point numbers will be worse. On things that would cancel or equal each other, round-off error sometimes makes them not do so, thereby making the problem more complicated. Also, Mathematica might rationalize the numbers and convert them to ratios of very large integers; while that cures the round-off problem, it can make the algebra seem very complicated.


The reason for the failure of Simplify[fa[a]] is the behavior of machine underflow. Somehow, Simplify suppresses the message; probably someone on the site can say how to get the message to be unsuppressed. A vestige of it can be summoned with $MessagePrePrint:


ClearSystemCache[];
Block[{$MessagePrePrint = (Print[FullForm@#]; #) &},

 Simplify[fa[a]]
 ]
(*
HoldForm[$MessageList]

HoldForm[Times[-224999.99999999997`,
 8.42822696534888596`6.386636439297712*^-1605970792]]

0.
*)


We can see that the expression culled results in underflow:


Times[-224999.99999999997`, 
 8.42822696534888596`6.386636439297712*^-1605970792]


General::munfl: -225000. 8.42823*10^-1605970792 is too small to represent as a normalized machine number; precision may be lost.



    (*  0.  *)


It's one of the pitfalls of using machine-precision in an exact-symbolic way. Arbitrary-precision is more robust, but it has its limitations, too.


Remark: You might notice the second factor of Times is an arbitrary precision number. This arose from machine-number overflow. (Underflow used to work in the same way, but Wolfram changed the behavior in V11.3.)


Update: I found the command, or at least another one, that leads to the problem, Factor.


Factor[fa[a]]


General::munfl: -225000. 8.42823*10^-1605970792 is too small to represent as a normalized machine number; precision may be lost.



(*  0.  *)

Comments

Post a Comment

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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....
Post a Comment
Read more