Skip to main content

Unknown function with arbitrary arguments assumption


Is it possible to define an assumption like this:


$Assumptions=f[__]>0


So that:


Simplify[f[x]+3==0]

(*False*)

Simplify[f[a,b,c]+4==0]

(*False*)

Etc...



The way above doesn't work, but is intended to show what I want to do.


I have this function f, that appears in many coordinate systems, and this way would be nice to avoid adding many assumptions for each set of arguments.



Answer



There is another alternative which you could look into: dynamically creating your assumptions. I will try to show it with the simple example you have given. Basically, when you call Simplify[f[a,b,c]+4==0] then you can easily extract the expressions matching your pattern with Cases. For instance


Cases[Hold[Simplify[f[a, b, c] - f[x] == 0]], f[__], Infinity]
(* {f[a, b, c], f[x]} *)

The same is true for your assumptions. You can easily extract the pattern you use. The next may look a bit weird, because we have to create a pattern, that matches a pattern...


Cases[f[__] + 3 > 0 && x + 3 == 2, _[Verbatim[__]], Infinity]
(* {f[__]} *)


Now, the only thing we have to do is to extract the above pattern from your assumptions and use this pattern to find all occurrences that match in your simplify code. Then we built a new, longer assumption of the form


(f[a,b,c] + 3 > 0 && x + 3 == 2) && (f[x] + 3 > 0 && x + 3 == 2)

and use this assumption to evaluate your code. Let's pack this into a function. Note that I have to hold the arguments of this new AssumingAll function because otherwise your Simplify code would be evaluated too soon:


SetAttributes[AssumingAll, {HoldAll}];
AssumingAll[ass_, code_] := 
 With[{patt = First@Cases[{ass}, _Symbol[Verbatim[__]], Infinity]},
  Assuming[
   And @@ (ass /. Verbatim[patt] :> # & /@ 

      Cases[Hold[code], patt, Infinity]),
   code]
]

Now you are free to try it out:


AssumingAll[f[__] == const, Simplify[f[a, b, c] - f[x] == 0]]
(* True *)

or


AssumingAll[f[__] > 0,

 {Simplify[f[x] + 3 == 0], Simplify[f[a, b, c] + 4 == 0]}]
(* {False, False} *)

or


AssumingAll[f[__] == -3,
 {Simplify[f[x] + 3 == 0], Simplify[f[a, b, c] + 4 == 0]}]
(* {True, False} *)

Comments

Post a Comment

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[ ...
Post a Comment
Read more

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?
Post a Comment
Read more

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...
Post a Comment
Read more