Skip to main content

Multivariate series expansions to different powers


I have a function that (I believe) correctly takes the multivariate Taylor series expansion about the origin for some expression (first argument), in some variables (second argument, list), to different orders (third argument, list).


My method for taking the multivariate series expansion follows the answer provided here. I take the series expansion to the highest order requested in the list (unless the highest order is infinity, in which case the next-highest is used), then I truncate the series by adding a "big-O" for each variable at its requested order plus one. If the requested order of a variable is infinity, no expansion is performed on that variable.


mySeriesMWE[exp_, x_List, o_List] := Module[
{pos, ow, xw, xDummy},
pos = Position[o, Infinity];

If[(Length[o] < 1) || (Length[pos] == Length[o]),
Return[exp],
ow = o // Delete[#, pos] &;
xw = x // Delete[#, pos] &;
(exp /.
Thread[xw -> xDummy*xw] //
Series[#, {xDummy, 0, Max[ow]}] & //
Normal) /.
{xDummy -> 1} //
# +

Sum[O[xw[[i]]]^(ow[[i]] + 1), {i, 1, Length[xw]}] & //
Normal
]
];

Usually, the results are as-expected, but there is a test-case that provides a result that is unintuitive, but I think, technically correct: when the expression is $x y z$ and we compare the expansion at the origin for the powers $\{1,1,3\}$ and $\{1,1,\infty\}$.


mySeriesMWE[x y z, {x, y, z}, {1, 1, 3}]
mySeriesMWE[x y z, {x, y, z}, {1, 1, Infinity}]
--output--
x y z

0

It was surprising to me that taking the third power in $z$ gave a better approximation (in fact, the entire expression) than not taking the expansion in $z$ at all! I checked in the general case, however, and I think this result is correct:


mySeriesMWE[f[x, y, z], {x, y, z}, {1, 1, 3}] // Expand
mySeriesMWE[f[x, y, z], {x, y, z}, {1, 1, Infinity}]
--output--
f[0,0,0]+z (f^(0,0,1))[0,0,0]+1/2 z^2 (f^(0,0,2))[0,0,0]+1/6 z^3 (f^(0,0,3))[0,0,0]+y (f^(0,1,0))[0,0,0]+y z (f^(0,1,1))[0,0,0]+1/2 y z^2 (f^(0,1,2))[0,0,0]+x (f^(1,0,0))[0,0,0]+x z (f^(1,0,1))[0,0,0]+1/2 x z^2 (f^(1,0,2))[0,0,0]+x y (f^(1,1,0))[0,0,0]+x y z (f^(1,1,1))[0,0,0]
f[0,0,z]+y (f^(0,1,0))[0,0,z]+x (f^(1,0,0))[0,0,z]

The last term in the first output is $x y z$ when the expression is $x y z$, and I believe both expansions match the definition of a multivariate Taylor series about the origin, throwing away the proper higher-order terms.



My first question is: is the function valid for orders less-than infinity? (I believe the answer is "yes," but I have never seen a multivariate Taylor series expansion truncated in certain orders.)


My second question is: is the function's behavior correct when the requested order of a variable is infinity?


My third question is: is there a better way to write the function such that the variable we do not wish to expand in is somehow better-preserved?


Edit


Here's a better way, based on a suggestion by John Sidles. The idea is to "penalize" higher-order terms by weighting the replacement of xDummy with an exponent that depends (unintuitively: inversely) on the requested orders of expansion in that variable. Here is the modified function.


mySeriesMWE[exp_, x_List, o_List] := Module[
{pos, ow, xw, n, xDummy, xDummyPower, xDummyList, testList},
pos = Position[o, Infinity];
If[(Length[o] < 1) || (Length[pos] == Length[o]),
Return[exp],

ow = o // Delete[#, pos] &;
xw = x // Delete[#, pos] &;
n = Length[xw];
xDummyList = Array[xDummy^(1 + Max[ow] - ow[[#]]) &, n];
testList = Array[If[#1 == #2, ow[[#1]], 0] &, {n, n}];
xDummyPower =
Max[
Table[
Sum[
testList[[j, k]]*(1 + Max[ow] - ow[[k]]),

{k, 1, n}
],
{j, 1, n}
]
];
(exp /.
Table[xw[[i]] -> xDummyList[[i]]*xw[[i]], {i, 1, n}] //
Series[#, {xDummy, 0, xDummyPower}] & //
Normal) /.
{xDummy -> 1} //

# + Sum[O[xw[[i]]]^(ow[[i]] + 1), {i, 1, n}] & //
Normal
]
];

There is some ambiguity in choosing the order of expansion in xDummy. I chose a conservative value (including extra terms) and truncated with O in the usual manner, in case an obvious term was missed in the expansion (which does happen).



Answer



This was what I had in mind (does not handle infinites in the order spec though). I'm not at all convinced that it's what you want but it might give some ideas for coding.


weightedMultivariateSeries[f_, vars_List, ord_List] /; 
Length[vars] === Length[ord] &&

VectorQ[ord, IntegerQ[#] && # > 0 &] := Module[
{t, n = Length[ord], lcm = LCM @@ ord, newf},
newf = f /. Thread[vars -> vars^(lcm/ord)];
newf = newf /. Thread[vars -> t*vars];
Normal[Series[newf, {t, 0, Max@(lcm/ord)}]] /. t -> 1 /.
Thread[vars -> vars^(ord/lcm)]
]

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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....