Skip to main content

complex - Differentiation of an unknown function


I have to take the partial differentiation of an unknown function. For example, take the unknown function to be g(x). Then it's derivative w.r.t x is g′(x).


By default, Mathematica differentiates the function. I want to keep the result of differentiation as d(g(x)) and not g′(x). Is there any way to achieve this?


More precisely, I am using Conjugate[g[x]] as the unknown function and I want the output should be displayed only as d[Conjugate[g[x]] and not as Conjugate'[x]g'[x].


Also, can I handle the conjugate more efficiently than just carrying it all along in the code?




Answer



Edited because the goal was changed in the comment:


This can be done by directly defining the outcome of Derivative when applied to g in the two combinations that you seem to be interested in:


Derivative[1][g][x_] := d[g[x]]

Derivative[1][Conjugate][g[x_]] := Conjugate[d[g[x]]]/d[g[x]];
Derivative[1][Conjugate][d[x_]] := Conjugate[d[d[x]]]/d[d[x]]

Derivative[1][d][x_] := d[d[x]]/d[x];
Derivative[1][d][x_Symbol] := d[d[x]]


On the second line, I used the fact that g is a generic function whose derivative under a Conjugate by default invokes the chain rule. All I do then is to reverse the chain rule by dividing by the factor d[g[x]] that the chain rule will produce. This leaves only the factor I want, and I then replace that by the desired outcome d[Conjugate[g[x]]].


The analogous thing is done for d to allow higher derivatives. The exception is when d[x] is encountered where x is the differentiation variable (which isn't in the question, but I expect may happen). Then there is no chain rule needed, and I therefore specify a separate rule for it with the pattern x_Symbol.


Here is the test:


D[g[x], x]

(* ==> d[g[x]] *)

D[Conjugate[g[x]], x]


(* ==> d[Conjugate[g[x]]] *)

D[g[x], x, x]

(* ==> d[d[g[x]]] *)

D[d[g[x]], x]

(* ==> d[d[g[x]]] *)


D[d[x], x]

(* ==> d[d[x]] *)

D[Conjugate[g[x]], x]

(* ==> Conjugate[d[g[x]]] *)

D[Conjugate[g[x]], x, x]


(* ==> Conjugate[d[d[g[x]]]] *)

Now the remaining issue is to replace the repeated application of d by formatting of the type d^2 g[x] for d[d[g[x]]]. I'll wait to see if this is really desired before doing it.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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

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

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