Skip to main content

simplifying expressions - Simplify equations with pattern assumptions


When simplifying an expression using Simplify[expr, assumptions], the assumptions has to be explicit. Is it possible to simplify an expression with pattern assumptions?


(TransformationFunctions can satisfy some of the needs, but it is not always functional as in the following examples.)


For example


psimp[Sqrt[a[t]^2], a[m_] > 0]


a[t]



psimp[f[x] (1 + a) (1 + b) == 0, f[a_] != 0]



(1 + a) (1 + b) == 0



psimp[(d[t] + b[t] + c[t])^2 + (d[m] + b[m] + c[m])^3 + a[n] + x[n] //
   Expand, {d[f_] + b[f_] + c[f_] == a[f], a[n] + x[n] == s}]


s + a[m]^3 + a[t]^2




psimp[g[x, y]*Derivative[0, 1][f][x, y] + f[x, y]*Derivative[0, 1][g][x, y], 
 (g_)[x_, y_]*Derivative[0, 1][f_][x_, y_] + (f_)[x_, y_]*Derivative[0, 1][g_][x_, y_] == Defer[D[f[x, y]*g[x, y], y]]]


D[f[x, y]*g[x, y], y]




Answer



This can be accomplished by dynamically analyzing the expression and generating the explicit assumptions from the given assumptions pattern.


ClearAll[psimp, psimpStep, ptn2explicit];


ptn2explicit[expr_, pattern_List, RHS_] := 
 With[{cases = Cases[expr, #, {0,Infinity}, Heads -> True] & /@ pattern, 
   ruleLHS = {___, #, ___} & /@ pattern, 
   ruleRHS = pattern /. Verbatim[Pattern][arg_, ___] :> arg},
  MapThread[Verbatim[#1] -> #2 &, {pattern~Append~RHS, #}] & /@ 
   ReplaceList[cases, ruleLHS :> (ruleRHS~Append~RHS)]]

psimp[expr_, cond_] := psimp[expr, {cond}];

psimpStep[expr_, cond_List] := 

 Module[{LHS, RHS, explicitCond, \[UnderBracket], operator, opList, count},
  operator = Equal | Unequal | Greater | Less | GreaterEqual | LessEqual | Element;
  LHS = Cases[cond, (l_~operator~r_) :> l];
  RHS = Cases[cond, (l_~(o : operator)~r_) :> 
     If[o === Equal, \[UnderBracket][][][]@r, r]];
  opList = Cases[cond, (l_~(o : operator)~r_) :> o];
  explicitCond = And @@ Union@
     Flatten[#1~#2~#3 /. ptn2explicit[expr, Variables@#1, #3] & @@@ 
       Transpose[{LHS, opList, RHS}]]; 
  count[e_] := LeafCount[e] - Count[e, \[UnderBracket][][][][_]];

  Simplify[expr, explicitCond, 
    ComplexityFunction -> count] /. \[UnderBracket][][][][x_] :> x]

psimp[expr_, cond_List] := FixedPoint[psimpStep[#, cond] &, expr]

A few explanations are in order here:


(1) Function ptn2explicit generates a list of rules to convert the patterns in expr into explicit expressions. For example,


ptn2explicit[a[t] + b[t] + a[m] + b[m] + c[m], {a[f_], b[f_]}, d[f]]



{{Verbatim[a[f_]] -> a[m], Verbatim[b[f_]] -> b[m], Verbatim[d[f]] -> d[m]}, {Verbatim[a[f_]] -> a[t], Verbatim[b[f_]] -> b[t], Verbatim[d[f]] -> d[t]}}



The ptn2explicit function is a modified version of @halirutan's answer in How to do Cases with multiple related patterns?. (BTW: everybody complains the question in this link was not clear. I guess you know what I want to do in case you also read this post ^_^)


(2) A strange symbol \[UnderBracket] is used here. Because this is the named and visible symbol with greatest lexical order (at least among the first 10^4). As noticed in Why does Simplify ignore an assumption? and references therein, we need to use symbols with greater lexical order for some rules to take effect.


The SubValues \[UnderBracket][][][] is to further reduce the lexical order of this symbol. Otherwise Derivative[__][__][__] has lower order. This particular subvalued one is not the absolute lowest lexical ordered one, but would be enough for most cases.


(3) After simplification, the new expression may contain new symbols that matches the given assumptions pattern. Thus we perform a FixedPoint, until the result stabilizes.


(4) There is a limitation that one has to give names to each patterns in the assumption. For example, psimp[Sqrt[a[t]^2], a[_] > 0] doesn't work but psimp[Sqrt[a[t]^2], a[m_] > 0] works.


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