I have an expression that actually can be expressed in simple form by collecting the specific terms. I have problem in Maxima to substitute or simplify the expression to the known terms.
(%i1) expr:(16*h^2*v_0^2+(38*h*u_0-38*h*u_1)*v_0+25*u_1^2-50*u_0*u_1+25*u_0^2)/3;
2 2 2 2
16 h v_0 + (38 h u_0 - 38 h u_1) v_0 + 25 u_1 - 50 u_0 u_1 + 25 u_0
(%o1) -----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
(%i2) eq1:a1=-h*v_0+2*u_1-2*u_0;
eq2:a2=-2*(h*v_0-u_1+u_0);
(%o2) a1 = (- h v_0) + 2 u_1 - 2 u_0
(%i3)
(%o3) a2 = - 2 (h v_0 - u_1 + u_0)
(%i4) subst([eq1,eq2],expr);
2 2 2 2
16 h v_0 + (38 h u_0 - 38 h u_1) v_0 + 25 u_1 - 50 u_0 u_1 + 25 u_0
(%o4) -----------------------------------------------------------------------
3
What I want is something like this
expr=c1*(a1)^q1 + c2*(a2)^q2
where c1,c2,q1,q2 are the constant that would generated by simplifying expr using known term a1,a2. How to do that? Is there any specific syntax?
Related
Hello I'm very new to maxima.
How could I have something like dot products noticed and simplfied?
Attempt 1:
tellsimpafter(a[1]*b[1]+a[2]*b[2], dot(a,b));
Works for a[1]*b[1]+a[2]*b[2] but not v[1]*w[1]+v[2]*w[2] nor w[2]*v[2]+123+v[1]*w[1].
Attempt 2:
matchdeclare(a, lambda([x], length(x)=2));
matchdeclare(b, lambda([x], length(x)=2));
tellsimpafter(a[1]*b[1]+a[2]*b[2], dot(a,b));
Doesn't even work for a[1]*b[1]+a[2]*b[2].
Here's a possible solution. Assuming that you know the names of the arrays, it's straightforward to extract the inner product. Then loop over that with all possible array names, as determined by looking at the subscripted variables in the expression.
/* solution for https://stackoverflow.com/questions/69673365/custom-simplification-rules */
/* try all combinations of potential arrays in succession */
contract_inner_products (e) :=
(for S in powerset (subscripted_variables(e), 2)
do block ([%xx: first(S), %yy: second(S)],
e: apply1 (e, rule_contract_inner_product)),
e);
/* extract potential arrays */
subscripted_variables (e) :=
setify (map (op, sublist (listofvars(e), subvarp)));
/* contract inner product, assuming arrays have been identified */
matchdeclare (aa, lambda([e], freeof(%xx, e) or freeof(%yy, e)),
bb, lambda([e], freeof(%xx, e) and freeof(%yy, e)),
xx, lambda([e], e = %xx), yy, lambda([e], e = %yy));
defrule (rule_contract_inner_product, aa + bb*xx[1]*yy[1] + bb*xx[2]*yy[2], aa + bb*dot(xx, yy));
Here are some examples.
(%i3) dotgh: g[1]*h[1] + g[2]*h[2] $
(%i4) dotab: a[1]*b[1] + a[2]*b[2] $
(%i5) dotxy: x[1]*y[1] + x[2]*y[2] $
(%i6) contract_inner_products (dotgh);
(%o6) dot(g, h)
(%i7) contract_inner_products (dotgh + dotxy);
(%o7) dot(x, y) + dot(g, h)
(%i8) contract_inner_products (dotgh - dotxy);
(%o8) dot(g, h) - dot(x, y)
(%i9) contract_inner_products (dotgh - 2*dotxy);
(%o9) dot(g, h) - 2 dot(x, y)
(%i10) contract_inner_products (n/2*dotgh - 2*dotxy);
dot(g, h) n
(%o10) ----------- - 2 dot(x, y)
2
(%i11) contract_inner_products (n/2*dotgh - 2*dotxy - 6*%pi^2);
dot(g, h) n 2
(%o11) (- 2 dot(x, y)) + ----------- - 6 %pi
2
It seems to work for stuff of the form dot(x, y) + dot(x, z).
(%i12) contract_inner_products (dotgh + g[1]*f[1] + g[2]*f[2]);
(%o12) dot(g, h) + dot(f, g)
(%i13) contract_inner_products (dotgh + g[1]*f[1] + g[2]*f[2] + 123);
(%o13) dot(g, h) + dot(f, g) + 123
(%i14) contract_inner_products (dotgh + g[1]*x[1] + g[2]*x[2] + 123);
(%o14) dot(g, x) + dot(g, h) + 123
(%i15) contract_inner_products (dotgh + h[1]*x[1] + h[2]*x[2] + 123);
(%o15) dot(h, x) + dot(g, h) + 123
I didn't really expect it to work for dot(x, y) + dot(x, z), but anyway that's great.
If you try it on other examples, you'll probably find some cases which this approach doesn't recognize.
EDIT: Note that it's not necessary for the would-be dot product to be at the top level of the expression. It looks for potential inner products in subexpressions, too.
(%i11) 1/(1 - dotab/4);
1
(%o11) -----------------
a b + a b
2 2 1 1
1 - -------------
4
(%i12) contract_inner_products(%);
1
(%o12) -------------
dot(a, b)
1 - ---------
4
(%i13) expand (%o11);
1
(%o13) ---------------------
a b a b
2 2 1 1
(- -----) - ----- + 1
4 4
(%i14) contract_inner_products(%);
1
(%o14) -------------
dot(a, b)
1 - ---------
4
I have a function in Maxima I am differentiating then attempting to find the value at which this is zero. When I use solve(), however, I am not given a solution. Why is this, and how can I work around it?
(%i1) f(x):=(-5*(x^4+5*x^3-3*x))/(x^2+1);
(%o1) f(x):=((-5)*(x^4+5*x^3+(-3)*x))/(x^2+1)
(%i2) df(x):=''(diff(f(x), x));
(%o2) df(x):=(10*x*(x^4+5*x^3-3*x))/(x^2+1)^2-(5*(4*x^3+15*x^2-3))/(x^2+1)
(%i3) solve(df(x), x);
(%o3) [0=2*x^5+5*x^4+4*x^3+18*x^2-3]
The function solve is not too strong; there are many problems it can't solve. A stronger version is under development. In the meantime, try the add-on package to_poly_solve. Here's what I get:
(%i1) df(x) := (10*x*(x^4+5*x^3-3*x))/(x^2+1)^2-(5*(4*x^3+15*x^2-3))/(x^2+1) $
(%i2) load (to_poly_solve) $
(%i3) to_poly_solve (df(x), x);
(%o3) %union([x = - 2.872468527640942], [x = - 0.4194144025323134],
[x = 0.3836388367122223], [x = 0.2041221431132173 - 1.789901606296292 %i],
[x = 1.789901606296292 %i + 0.2041221431132173])
Something which is maybe a little surprising is that to_poly_solve has returned a numerical solution instead of exact or symbolic. Tracing allroots shows that to_poly_solve has constructed a quintic equation and punted it to allroots. Since the general quintic doesn't have a solution in terms of radicals, and even in special cases it's probably very messy, maybe it's most useful to have a numerical solution anyway.
Try plot2d(df(x), [x, -3, 1]) to visualize the real roots returned above.
You can try to find a numerical solution. I don't know why solve does not try this. Either you take the ouput of aolveor you do hte folölowing:
(%i1) f(x):=(-5*(x^4+5*x^3-3*x))/(x^2+1);
4 3
(- 5) (x + 5 x + (- 3) x)
(%o1) f(x) := ---------------------------
2
x + 1
(%i2) df(x):=''(diff(f(x), x));
4 3 3 2
10 x (x + 5 x - 3 x) 5 (4 x + 15 x - 3)
(%o2) df(x) := ---------------------- - --------------------
2 2 2
(x + 1) x + 1
Bring it to a common denominator and extract the numerator:
(%i3) xthru(df(x));
4 3 2 3 2
10 x (x + 5 x - 3 x) - 5 (x + 1) (4 x + 15 x - 3)
(%o3) ------------------------------------------------------
2 2
(x + 1)
(%i4) num(%);
4 3 2 3 2
(%o4) 10 x (x + 5 x - 3 x) - 5 (x + 1) (4 x + 15 x - 3)
use allsrootsto find the roots of a polynomial numerically
(%i5) allroots(%);
(%o5) [x = 0.3836388391066617, x = - 0.4194143906217701,
x = 1.789901606296292 %i + 0.2041221431132174,
x = 0.2041221431132174 - 1.789901606296292 %i, x = - 2.872468734711326]
skip the complex solutions
(%i6) sublist(%,lambda([t],imagpart(rhs(t))=0))
;
(%o6) [x = 0.3836388391066617, x = - 0.4194143906217701,
x = - 2.872468734711326]
newbie Maxima question
I have a transfer function in Maxima
E1 : y = K_i*s/(s^2 + w^2);
I'd like to have the closed-form of the equation affter applying the bilinear transform
E2 : s = (2/Ts*(z-1)/(z+1));
I would like to get the transfer function for z, by substituing s by equation E2. How should I proceed?
Regards
Note that subst can apply one or more substitutions stated as equations. In this case, try subst(E2, E1).
That will probably create a messy result -- you can simplify it somewhat by applying ratsimp to the result.
Here's what I get from that.
(%i2) E1 : y = K_i*s/(s^2 + w^2);
K_i s
(%o2) y = -------
2 2
w + s
(%i3) E2 : s = (2/Ts*(z-1)/(z+1));
2 (z - 1)
(%o3) s = ----------
Ts (z + 1)
(%i4) subst (E2, E1);
2 K_i (z - 1)
(%o4) y = ------------------------------
2
4 (z - 1) 2
Ts (z + 1) (------------ + w )
2 2
Ts (z + 1)
(%i5) ratsimp (%);
2
2 K_i Ts z - 2 K_i Ts
(%o5) y = -----------------------------------------------
2 2 2 2 2 2 2
(Ts w + 4) z + (2 Ts w - 8) z + Ts w + 4
I have an matrix in Maxima, let´s say (for simplification of the problem):
A: matrix([2*(a^2+b^2+c^2)])
But I know that:
a^2+b^2+c^2 = 1
How do I simplify that matrix in Maxima in terms of that equation, in order to obtain A = [2]?
I found the solution:
A: matrix([2*(a^2+b^2+c^2)]);
eq: a^2+b^2+c^2 = 1;
scsimp(A, eq);
You can use tellrat.
(%i1) A:matrix([2*(a^2+b^2+c^2)])
(%o1) [ 2 2 2 ]
[ 2 (c + b + a ) ]
(%i2) a^2+b^2+c^2 = 1
2 2 2
(%o2) c + b + a = 1
(%i3) solve(%,a^2)
2 2 2
(%o3) [a = (- c ) - b + 1]
(%i4) tellrat(%[1])
2 2 2
(%o4) [c + b + a - 1]
(%i5) algebraic:true
(%o5) true
(%i6) rat(A)
(%o6)/R/ [ 2 ]
(%i7) untellrat(a)
(%o7) []
I have an expression:
(b+2*ab+a+1)/c
I want to use Maxima to factor the equation treating (b+1) as a factor.
i.e. I want the expression in the following form:
[(b+1)(1+a)+ab]/c
Any help would be appreciated.
Well, my advice is first isolate the numerator, then get the quotient and remainder after dividing by b + 1, then put the pieces back together.
(%i1) display2d : false $
(%i2) expr : (b + 2*a*b + a + 1)/c $
(%i3) num (expr);
(%o3) 2*a*b+b+a+1
(%i4) divide (num (expr), b + 1);
(%o4) [2*a+1,-a]
(%i5) first(%o4) * (b + 1) + second(%o4);
(%o5) (2*a+1)*(b+1)-a
(%i6) (first(%o4) * (b + 1) + second(%o4)) / denom (expr);
(%o6) ((2*a+1)*(b+1)-a)/c
(%i7) is (equal (%o6, expr));
(%o7) true
Note that divide returns two values; first is the quotient and second is the remainder.