Skip to main content

simplifying expressions - How to select TransformationFunctions based on Assumptions made when using Simplify?


I am re-writing the question using a very simple example so not to confuse matters with the another question being asked where I used the example from there.


In general, how to add logic to switch between one TransformationFunctions or another inside Simplify or any function that uses TransformationFunctions?


For example,


ClearAll[n, tf, e, cf];
cf[e_] := LeafCount@e
tfForIntegerOnly[e_] := If[MatchQ[e, 2 n], n, e]
tfForRealOnly[e_] := If[MatchQ[e, 2 n], n^2, e]


Assuming[Element[n, Integers],
Simplify[2 n, TransformationFunctions -> {Automatic, tf}, ComplexityFunction -> cf]]

How to make it use tfForIntegerOnly when Element[n, Integers] and use tfForRealOnly when Element[n, Reals]


Where to add this logic? How to pass the assumptions around or check for it and what it contains? Since Mathematica does not have types (in traditional sense) associated or attached with the symbols themselves (other than looking at Head, which in this case provides no information), one needs a general way to handle this.


Original question below


I'd like to simplify an expression under one set of assumptions using one TransformationFunctions function and use another TransformationFunctions function (or use Automatic) for different set of assumptions.


The problem is that the TransformationFunctions itself has no access to these Assumptions used before in calling Simplify and hence it is hard to find a way to add logic to detect which assumptions is used at that level.


To explain, I want to apply TransformationFunctions to transform Gamma[1/2 + n] to Sqrt[Pi] (Factorial2[2 *(n - 1/2) - 1])/2^(n - 1/2) but only when Element[n, Integers] && n > 1.


I am not able to find a way to pass these assumptions from the Assuming call to the TransformationFunctions or a way to make 2 different TransformationFunctions and use vs. the other inside Simplify itself.



Here an example


ClearAll[n, tf, e, cf];
cf[e_] := Count[e, Gamma, Infinity, Heads -> True] 1000 + LeafCount@e
tf[e_] := If[MatchQ[e, Gamma[1/2 + n]],Sqrt[Pi] (Factorial2[2 *(n - 1/2) - 1])/2^(n - 1/2), e]

Assuming[Element[n, Integers] && n > 1,Simplify[Gamma[1/2 + n] + Gamma[1/3 + n],
TransformationFunctions -> {Automatic, tf},ComplexityFunction -> cf]]

Mathematica graphics


But now if I assume n is Real, I do not want to modify the code above, but I want the TransformationFunctions to automatically to detect this and in this case not apply this transformation rule or add some logic inside Simplify to use one TransformationFunctions vs. the other based on Assumptions



ClearAll[n, tf, e, cf];
cf[e_] := Count[e, Gamma, Infinity, Heads -> True] 1000 + LeafCount@e
tf[e_] := If[MatchQ[e, Gamma[1/2 + n]], Sqrt[Pi] (Factorial2[2 *(n - 1/2) - 1])/2^(n - 1/2), e]

Assuming[Element[n, Reals], Simplify[Gamma[1/2 + n] + Gamma[1/3 + n],
TransformationFunctions -> {Automatic, tf},
ComplexityFunction -> cf]]

Mathematica graphics


which is wrong since now n is not an integer now.



I'd like to be able to write


Assuming[Element[n, Reals], Simplify[Gamma[1/2 + n] + Gamma[1/3 + n],
TransformationFunctions ->Cases[Element[n, Reals], Automatic, Element[n, Integers] && n > 1,tf],
ComplexityFunction -> cf]
]

But the above is not valid syntax.




Answer



I had a bit of trouble following the use of explicit (hard-coded) Symbols (n) in your transformation functions. I assumed these were used only for the simple example and replaced them with patters in my code below.




I believe you want something like this:


ClearAll[n, tf, e, cf];
cf[e_] := Count[e, Gamma, Infinity, Heads -> True] 1000 + LeafCount@e

tf[Gamma[1/2 + x_]] /; Simplify[x ∈ Integers] :=
Sqrt[Pi] (Factorial2[2*(x - 1/2) - 1])/2^(x - 1/2)

Now:


Table[
Assuming[Element[n, domain] && n > 1,

Simplify[Gamma[1/2 + n] + Gamma[1/3 + n],
TransformationFunctions -> {Automatic, tf},
ComplexityFunction -> cf]],
{domain, {Integers, Reals}}
] // Column


2^(1/2 - n) Sqrt[π] (2 (-1 + n))!! + Gamma[1/3 + n]

Gamma[1/3 + n] + Gamma[1/2 + n]


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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.