Skip to main content

Series expansion of expressions with Log and PolyLog functions (again)


I think that I discovered another (c.f. Series expansion of expressions with Log and PolyLog functions) issue related to Series and PolyLog.


Consider the following expression


exp = (-16*Pi^2*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]])/3 + (16*Pi^2*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]])/
   x^4 + (16*Pi^2*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]])/(3*x^2) + (32*Pi^2*
     Log[1 + Sqrt[x]])/(3*x) + (32*Pi^2*x*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]])/

   3 - (16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^3)/3 + (16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^3)/
   x^4 + (16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^3)/(3*x^2) + (32*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^3)/(3*
     x) + (32*x*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^3)/3 + (16*Pi^2*Log[1 - x])/
   3 - (16*Pi^2*Log[1 - x])/
   x^4 - (16*Pi^2*Log[1 - x])/(3*x^2) - (32*Pi^2*Log[1 - x])/(3*
     x) - (32*Pi^2*x*Log[1 - x])/3 + 
  16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*
   Log[1 - x] - (48*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[1 - x])/
   x^4 - (16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[1 - x])/
   x^2 - (32*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[1 - x])/x - 

  32*x*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[1 - x] - 
  16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*
   Log[1 - x]^2 + (48*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]^2)/
   x^4 + (16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]^2)/
   x^2 + (32*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]^2)/x + 
  32*x*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]^2 + (16*Log[1 - x]^3)/
   3 - (16*Log[1 - x]^3)/
   x^4 - (16*Log[1 - x]^3)/(3*x^2) - (32*Log[1 - x]^3)/(3*x) - (32*x*
     Log[1 - x]^3)/3 - 
  8*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[x] + (24*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[x])/

   x^4 + (8*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[x])/
   x^2 + (16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[x])/x + 
  16*x*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]^2*Log[x] + 
  16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]*
   Log[x] - (48*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]*Log[x])/
   x^4 - (16*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]*Log[x])/
   x^2 - (32*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]*Log[x])/x - 
  32*x*Log[1 + Sqrt[x]]*Log[1 - x]*Log[x] - 
  8*Log[1 - x]^2*Log[x] + (24*Log[1 - x]^2*Log[x])/
   x^4 + (8*Log[1 - x]^2*Log[x])/x^2 + (16*Log[1 - x]^2*Log[x])/x + 

  16*x*Log[1 - x]^2*Log[x] - 
  32*PolyLog[3, 1 - Sqrt[x]] + (96*PolyLog[3, 1 - Sqrt[x]])/
   x^4 + (32*PolyLog[3, 1 - Sqrt[x]])/
   x^2 + (64*PolyLog[3, 1 - Sqrt[x]])/x + 
  64*x*PolyLog[3, 1 - Sqrt[x]] - 
  32*PolyLog[3, Sqrt[x]] + (96*PolyLog[3, Sqrt[x]])/
   x^4 + (32*PolyLog[3, Sqrt[x]])/x^2 + (64*PolyLog[3, Sqrt[x]])/x + 
  64*x*PolyLog[3, Sqrt[x]] - 
  32*PolyLog[
    3, -(Sqrt[x]/(1 - Sqrt[x]))] + (96*

     PolyLog[3, -(Sqrt[x]/(1 - Sqrt[x]))])/
   x^4 + (32*PolyLog[3, -(Sqrt[x]/(1 - Sqrt[x]))])/
   x^2 + (64*PolyLog[3, -(Sqrt[x]/(1 - Sqrt[x]))])/x + 
  64*x*PolyLog[3, -(Sqrt[x]/(1 - Sqrt[x]))] + 
  32*Zeta[3] - (96*Zeta[3])/x^4 - (32*Zeta[3])/x^2 - (64*Zeta[3])/x - 
  64*x*Zeta[3]

exp can be made much shorter by applying Simplify to it, but in my case it is a part of a much larger expression and applying Simplify to the whole expression makes little sense.


In fact, for x between 0 and 1 exp vanishes identically. Therefore, if I expand this expression in x around 0 the expected result is zero. With Mathematica 8 and Mathematica 9 I get the desired result so that


Series[exp, {x, 0, 0}] // Normal


yields


0

However, starting with Mathematica 10 (I have version 10.3 here) something strange is going on. For some reason


Series[exp, {x, 0, 0}] // Normal

returns


-3201281/105840 + 2*Pi^2 + (84*(-3 + Log[x]))/(5*Sqrt[x]) + (1089*Log[x])/70


but


Series[Simplify[exp], {x, 0, 0}] // Normal

still gives me the correct result. The same behavior is observed with Mathematica 11.0 and 11.2. Using Assumptions -> x > 0 or Assumptions -> 0 < x < 1 does not change anything.


To me this very much looks like a bug. In any case I believe that the result returned by Series should not depend on whether one have applied Simplify to the initial expression or not. However, as this behavior might also be caused by a misunderstanding from my side, I'd like to hear the opinion of other users from this site first.




Comments

Post a Comment

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}]
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

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