Skip to main content

matrix - Why do ReplaceAll and With give different results?


I expected both results to be 03:


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

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

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

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more