Skip to main content

function construction - Define an 'inner product' with AngleBracket


I want to define my own little 'Inner Product' function satisfying properties of linearity and commutativity, and I'd like to use the "" and "" symbols to output my results. For this I am using AngleBracket which has no built-in meaning.


I was able to use SetAttributes[AngleBracket,Orderless] to give my inner product the property of commutativity. v,w=w,v.


Then I am able to inconsistently get the AngleBracket to distribute over addition using for example Distribute[AngleBracket[u+v,w]]


But I am at a loss to impose the conditions av,w=av,w where a satisfies NumericQ[a]==True, and especially 0,v=0.


How can do this? Do I need to write my own 'myInnerProductSimplify' function?



Answer



From your question it can be deduced that you're interested only in the Euclidean scalar product for real vector spaces, so I'll make that assumption.


In version 9, I think the cleanest way to do the symbolic manipulations you're after is to use the new capabilities of TensorReduce. The special case of a null vector does require care because the product of the scalar 0 with a vector is evaluated by Mathematica to yield 0 which should then be interpreted as the null vector. This causes no problems if we define AngleBracket to yield zero for such 0 arguments. So the following works if we make a decision at the outset what symbols we will assume to represent vectors - here I add that to the global variable $Assumptions:


AngleBracket[0, y_] := 0

AngleBracket[x_, 0] := 0
AngleBracket[x_, y_] := Dot[x, y]

Clear[dim];
$Assumptions =
a ∈ Vectors[dim, Reals] && b ∈ Vectors[dim, Reals];

Now some tests:


AngleBracket[3 a, b] == 3 AngleBracket[a, b] // TensorReduce


(* ==> True *)

Assuming[x ∈ Reals,
TensorReduce[AngleBracket[x a, b] == x AngleBracket[a, b]]]

(* ==> True *)

Assuming[x ∈ Reals,
TensorReduce[AngleBracket[a, x b] == x AngleBracket[a, b]]]


(* ==> True *)

So to do the simplifications in the above equations, one wraps them in TensorReduce. The scalar x is introduced through an additional assumption which I could have added to $Assumptions, too.


The use of AngleBracket instead of purely the built-in Dot is still useful here because it allows me to handle the special case involving the null vector. For that I personally prefer to use BraKet, by the way, because it only requires a single escape sequence to get the template for both factors of the scalar product.


Comments

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...

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...

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...