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 - 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[ ...

equation solving - Invert and fit implicitly defined curve

I need to fit an implicitly defined curve. I thought I could get some data out of Solve , and then using FindFit . Therefore, I would like to find the relation the parametric curve defined by $F(x,y)=0$: Solve[-(1/2) + 1/2 (0.41202 BesselK[0, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]] + (0.101483 x BesselK[1, 0.1 Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]])/Sqrt[x^2 + y^2]) == 0, y] But I can't get an output: Solve was unable to solve the system with inexact coefficients or the system obtained by direct rationalization of inexact numbers present in the system. Since many of the methods used by Solve require exact input, providing Solve with an exact version of the system may help. >> Edit: In particular, I would like to fit the data coming from the curve with the expression of another curve, and not with a function $f(x)$. In particular, since this clearly looks like a cardioid , I would like it to fit to something like it. What other strategies could I try?

dynamic - How can I make a clickable ArrayPlot that returns input?

I would like to create a dynamic ArrayPlot so that the rectangles, when clicked, provide the input. Can I use ArrayPlot for this? Or is there something else I should have to use? Answer ArrayPlot is much more than just a simple array like Grid : it represents a ranged 2D dataset, and its visualization can be finetuned by options like DataReversed and DataRange . These features make it quite complicated to reproduce the same layout and order with Grid . Here I offer AnnotatedArrayPlot which comes in handy when your dataset is more than just a flat 2D array. The dynamic interface allows highlighting individual cells and possibly interacting with them. AnnotatedArrayPlot works the same way as ArrayPlot and accepts the same options plus Enabled , HighlightCoordinates , HighlightStyle and HighlightElementFunction . data = {{Missing["HasSomeMoreData"], GrayLevel[ 1], {RGBColor[0, 1, 1], RGBColor[0, 0, 1], GrayLevel[1]}, RGBColor[0, 1, 0]}, {GrayLevel[0], GrayLevel...