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

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - How to draw lines between specified dots on ListPlot?

I would like to create a plot where I have unconnected dots and some connected. So far, I have figured out how to draw the dots. My code is the following: ListPlot[{{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4,13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full] I have thought using ListLinePlot command, but I don't know how to specify to the command to draw only selected lines between the dots. Do have any suggestions/hints on how to do that? Thank you. Answer One possibility would be to use Epilog with Line : ListPlot[ {{1, 1}, {2, 2}, {3, 3}, {4, 4}, {1, 4}, {2, 5}, {3, 6}, {4, 7}, {1, 7}, {2, 8}, {3, 9}, {4, 10}, {1, 10}, {2, 11}, {3, 12}, {4, 13}, {2.5, 7}}, Ticks -> {{1, 2, 3, 4}, None}, AxesStyle -> Thin, TicksStyle -> Directive[Black, Bold, 12], Mesh -> Full, Epilog -> { Line[ ...

list manipulation - Selecting multiple columns from a matrix?

Sample data: data = { {{2013, 1, 1}, 24.13, 167.67, 231.82}, {{2013, 1, 2}, 32.15, 170.92, 225.99}, {{2013, 1, 3}, 35.43, 172.68, 221.67}, {{2013, 1, 4}, 36.73, 173.05, 218.32}, {{2013, 1, 5}, 58.19, 165.96, 197.05}, {{2013, 1, 6}, 69.99, 163.50, 187.52}, {{2013, 1, 7}, 71.37, 154.21, 175.58}, {{2013, 1, 8}, 72.51, 149.66, 163.25}}; I want a DateListPlot with three graphs, so for a matrix formed by columns 1 and 2, one for columns 1 and 3, and 1 for columns 1 and 4. At the moment I'm using this code: data2 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 2]]}]; data3 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 3]]}]; data4 = Transpose[{data[[All, 1]], data[[All, 4]]}]; DateListPlot[{data2, data3, data4}, Joined -> True, Filling -> {3 -> {1}}] but I have a hunch that this can be done more efficiently. I don't like the Transpose s in particular. Any ideas? edit (for extra credit) What if I need to multiply the second column by 2, which in my solution is simp...

plotting - How to draw some 2D curves in a 3D plot?

I want to plot several 2D curves ( Sin[x] at y=0 , Cos[x] at y=1 ) in a 3D plot, what function should i use? f[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 0}, {Sin[x], y == 0}}] g[x_, y_] := Piecewise[{{0, y 1}, {Cos[x], y == 1}}] Plot3D[{f[x, y], g[x, y]}, {x, 0, 10}, {y, 0, 10}] doesn't work. Any ideas? Answer ParametricPlot3D[{{Sin[u], 0, u}, {Cos[u], 1, u}}, {u, 0, 20}, BoxRatios -> 1, PlotRange -> {{-2, 2}, {-.5, 2}, {0, 20}}] === update - general thoughts === I've seen the comments to this question and a few other approaches to the waterfall (or wire) plot are given in this question: Plotting several functions . Also I cannot not mention one of my favorite Mathematica blogs - Archery with this post on the story of discovery of 1st pulsar and an its infamous graphics - code is given in the post: