Skip to main content

numerics - How to make Mathematica try harder to perform symbolic comparisons?


(I suspect this question is a duplicate, but I didn't find a sufficiently similar question with an answer to it.)


I'm having trouble with comparisons of symbolic Reals that are equal, but which Mathematica has trouble recognising them as equal, apparently because it uses N to compare these (apparently after some simple symbolic manipulation). Typically these issues creep up in conditions like one (greatly simplified) below:


x > y /. {x -> Sqrt[(2 - Sqrt[3])^2 + (-3 + 2*Sqrt[3])^2], y -> 4 - 2*Sqrt[3]}


N::meprec: "Internal precision limit $MaxExtraPrecision = 50.` reached while evaluating -4+2\ Sqrt[3]+Sqrt[(2-Sqrt[3])^2+(-3+2 Sqrt[3])^2]."


Sqrt[(2 - Sqrt[3])^2 + (-3 + 2*Sqrt[3])^2] > 4 - 2*Sqrt[3]




This is in no way undocumented feature; it is discussed under Possible Issues section of $MaxExtraPrecision.


What I really want is Mathematica to try a bit harder on solving these (in)equalities numerically in a block of code. How do I accomplish this? As a workaround for specific problem above, this does work (while Simplify on inequality part doesn't):


x > y /. Simplify @ {x -> Sqrt[(2 - Sqrt[3])^2 + (-3 + 2*Sqrt[3])^2], y -> 4 - 2*Sqrt[3]}


False



I would be happy to see a solution that could wrap up around a block of code, and which could possibly work also on non-algebraics that FullSimplify can handle.


EDIT:


To clarify my question: I want first example to evaluate like the expression below, and in general Greater to evaluate for NumericQ argument list similarly inside a code block where I want this feature to be used:



  Simplify[Sqrt[(2 - Sqrt[3])^2 + (-3 + 2*Sqrt[3])^2]] > Simplify[4 - 2*Sqrt[3]]


False




Answer



This solution uses trick to redefine internal functions presented in this earlier answer by Leonid Shifrin.


(* Code run as an argument of WithFullySimplifiedComparisons tries
   harder to symbolically resolve equality and inequality tests. *)


ClearAll[WithFullySimplifiedComparisons];
WithFullySimplifiedComparisons =
  Module[
   {withReplacedFunctions, fullSimplifiedTest, testMappings, 
    splitInequality, wrapper},

   (* Runs code with functions in { old -> new, ... } mappings list
      executing new function in place of old, but old definitions
      working inside new implementations. *)


   SetAttributes[withReplacedFunctions, HoldRest];
   withReplacedFunctions[mappings_List, code_] :=
    Module[{outer = True},
     Internal`InheritedBlock[Evaluate@mappings[[All, 1]],
      (Unprotect[#1];
         #1[args___] :=
          Block[{outer = False}, #2[args]] /; outer;
         Protect[#1];) & @@@ mappings;
      code]];


   (* Returns a version of comparison function fun that attempts to
      simplify numeric comparisons in domain dom with FullSimplify. *)

   fullySimplifiedTest[fun_, dom_] :=
    Module[{test},
     test[] := True;
     test[_] := True;
     test[a_, b_, r___] :=
      With[{bn = FullSimplify[b]},
        If[fun[0, FullSimplify[bn - a]],

          test[bn, r], False, test[a, bn] && test[bn, r]]] /; 
       NumericQ[a] && NumericQ[b] && (a | b) \[Element] dom;
     test[a_, b_, r___] := fun[a, b] && test[b, r];
     test];

   (* Mappings for normal comparison functions. *)

   testMappings = 
    #1 -> fullySimplifiedTest[##] & @@@ 
     Join[{#, Complexes} & /@ {Equal, Unequal},

       {#, Reals} & /@ {Greater, GreaterEqual, Less, LessEqual}];

   (* Conversion function from Inequality to chain of simple tests. *)

   splitInequality[_] := True;
   splitInequality[a_, test_, b_, r___] := test[a, b] && splitInequality[b, r];

   (* Actual wrapper to be used.
      splitInequality uses new comparison functions. *)


   SetAttributes[wrapper, HoldFirst];
   wrapper[code_] :=
     withReplacedFunctions[testMappings,
       withReplacedFunctions[{Inequality -> splitInequality},
         code]];

   wrapper];

Now earlier problematic tests can run purely symbolically:


WithFullySimplifiedComparisons[

  x > y /. {x -> Sqrt[(2 - Sqrt[3])^2 + (-3 + 2*Sqrt[3])^2], y -> 4 - 2*Sqrt[3]}]


False



Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

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 - 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 - 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