Skip to main content

matrix - Why do ReplaceAll and With give different results?


I expected both results to be $0_3$:


P = RandomReal[1, {3, 3}];

A = MatrixFunction[Sin, t*P] /. t -> 0
B = With[{t = 0}, MatrixFunction[Sin, t*P]]

(* {{-0.362821 - 1.25562 I, 0.288053 + 1.1563 I, 0.107869 + 0.0658492 I}, 
   {0.133223 - 1.20752 I, -0.220254 +  1.22158 I, 0.181178 - 0.148004 I}, 
   {-0.0991967 + 0.526917 I, -0.208297 - 0.517217 I, 0.583075 + 0.0340421 }} *)

(* {{0., 0., 0.}, {0., 0., 0.}, {0., 0., 0.}} *)

Following J.M. comments:



P = RandomReal[1, {3, 3}, MachinePrecision -> 20] (* => A == B *)
P = RandomReal[1, {3, 3}, MachinePrecision -> 10] (* => A == B *)
P = RandomReal[1, {3, 3}, MachinePrecision -> $MachinePrecision] (* => A != B *)
a = $WorkingPrecision; P = RandomReal[1, {3, 3}, MachinePrecision -> a] (* => A == B *)

Also, using SetPrecision A is zero:


P = RandomReal[1, {3, 3}]
A = MatrixFunction[Sin, t*SetPrecision[P, $MachinePrecision]] /. t -> 0

So it's not a misunderstanding of mine, but a peculiar behaviour of MMA.




Answer



BUG FIXED IN V11.1.0, CONFIRMED IN EARLIER VERSIONS


This is really nothing to do with With and ReplaceAll. (In the case of With the substitution t=0 happens first, so the apparent bug is not triggered).


It looks as if Mathematica gives incorrect answers for


MatrixFunction[Sin, t * P]

in almost all cases where P is a machine precision square matrix of size 2 or larger, and t is unassigned. This does not appear to be a precision issue.


For example, define notionally equivalent matrices


P = {{1, 2}, {4, 3}}/4;


Aa = MatrixFunction[Sin, t P];
An = MatrixFunction[Sin, t N[P]];

Compare


Aa /. t -> 0
An /. t -> 0
(* {{0, 0}, {0, 0}} *)
(* {{0.421637, -0.210819}, {0.843274, -0.421637}} *)

Further, compare the notionally equivalent



MatrixFunction[Sin, N[P]]
Aa /. t -> 1.0
An /. t -> 1.0
(* {{0.151392, 0.398796}, {0.797592, 0.550188}} *)
(* {{0.151392, 0.398796}, {0.797592, 0.550188}} *)
(* {{1.08194, -0.0664758}, {0.265903, 0.816033 *)}}

This even occurs when P is real, symmetric, positive definite with integer coefficients.


UPDATED


This appears to be the result of Mathematica choosing an incorrect algorithm in the specific (and probably unusual) case where MatrixFunction is applied to the product of an unassigned variable and a machine precision matrix. The results given appear to be incorrect for all values t and occur in cases where the matrix is well behaved (the Schur and Jordan decompositions computed in machine precision agree closely with their exact values). Computing the results with any finite precision (not machine precision) does not suffer from this problem.



Comments

Post a Comment

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}]
Post a Comment
Read more

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 - 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