Skip to main content

visualization - Number of divisors visualized with the QPochhammer function, how to improve performance of code?


I have this code that is originally Jeffrey Stopple's code for the Riemann zeta function in the complex plane. Because I discovered yesterday that the number of divisors can be generated with the $q$-Pochhammer symbol (QPochhammer), and since Mathematica shows a plot of QPochhammer, I thought that plotting it would be fun.


Here is the code that needs improvement:


Show[Graphics[RasterArray[
   Table[Hue[Mod[3 Pi/2 + 
        Arg[Sum[(s + I t)^(n - 1)*(QPochhammer[(s + I t)^(n + 1), (s + I t)]/

             QPochhammer[(s + I t)^(n), (s + I t)]), {n, 1, 100}]], 
       2 Pi]/(2 Pi)], {t, -1.1, 1.1, .05}, {s, -1.1, 1.1, .05}]]], 
 AspectRatio -> Automatic]

And the code for the number of divisors:


CoefficientList[
 Series[Sum[
   x^(n - 1)*(QPochhammer[x^(n + 1), x]/QPochhammer[x^(n), x]), {n, 1,
     104}], {x, 0, 103}], x] (*_ Mats Granvik_,Jan 03 2015*)


1, 2, 2, 3, 2, 4, 2, 4, 3, 4, 2, 6, 2, 4, 4, 5, 2, 6, 2, 6, 4, 4, 2, 8, 3, 4, 4,
6, 2, 8, 2, 6, 4, 4, 4, 9, 2, 4, 4, 8, 2, 8, 2, 6, 6, 4, 2, 10, 3, 6, 4, 6, 2, 8,
4, 8, 4, 4, 2, 12, 2, 4, 6, 7, 4, 8, 2, 6, 4, 8, 2,...

The plot from the first program that I would like to improve:


Divisors from QPochhammer


Already if someone could post a plot with higher resolution, I would be glad. My computer is rather old.



Answer



It looks like you want to plot the phase-only information of a complex function. Using the following helper functions for plotting the phase-only information complex functions:


hue = Compile[{{z, _Complex}}, {Mod[3 π/2 + Arg[z], 

      2 π]/(2 π), 1, If[Abs[z] > 10^-3, 1, 0]}, 
   CompilationTarget -> "C", RuntimeAttributes -> {Listable}];
ComplexPlotC[f_, {x0_, x1_, δx_}, {y0_, y1_, δy_}] := 
  Image[hue[
     f[Outer[Complex, Range[x0, x1, δx], 
       Range[y1, y0, -δy]]]]\[Transpose], ColorSpace -> Hue, 
   Magnification -> 1];
CCompileC[expr_] := 
  Compile[{{z, _Complex}}, Evaluate[expr], CompilationTarget -> "C", 
   RuntimeAttributes -> {Listable}];


You can then compile your function and plot it (I'll only sum 10 terms, rather than 100, as using 100 would take quite a long time):


func = CCompileC[
   If[Abs[z] >= 0.999, 0, 
    Sum[z^(n - 1)*(QPochhammer[z^(n + 1), z]/
        QPochhammer[z^(n), z]), {n, 1, 10}]]];
ComplexPlotC[func, {-1 + 10^-6 RandomReal[], 1, 
  0.003}, {-1 + 10^-6 RandomReal[], 1, 0.003}]

which gives the following:



enter image description here


Here is a 100-term sum picture (open in separate tab to see slightly larger picture):


enter image description here


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