I have a fairly large expression that involves a lot of subexpressions of the form (100*A^3 + 200*A^2 + 100*A)*x or (-A^2 - A)*y or (100*A^2 + 100*A)*z
I know, but I don't know how to tell Maxima this, that it in this case is valid to make the approximation A+1 ~ A, thereby effectively removing anything but the highest power of A in each coefficient.
I'm now looking for functions, tools, or methods that I can use to guide Maxima in dropping various terms that aren't important.
I have attempted with subst, but that requires me to specify each and every factor separately, because:
subst([A+1=B], (A+2)*(A+1)*2);
subst([A+1=B], (A+2)*(A*2+2));
(%o1) 2*(A+2)*B
(%o2) (A+2)*(2*A+2)
(that is, I need to add one expression for each slightly different variant)
I tried with ratsimp, but that's too eager to change every occurrence:
ratsubst(B, A+1, A*(A+1)*2);
ratsubst(B, A+1, A*(A*2+2));
(%o3) 2*B^2-2*B
(%o4) 2*B^2-2*B
which isn't actually simpler, as I would have preferred the answer to have been given as 2*B^2.
In another answer, (https://stackoverflow.com/a/22695050/5999883) the functions let and letsimp were suggested for the task of substituting values, but I fail to get them to really do anything:
x:(A+1)*A;
let ( A+1, B );
letsimp(x);
(x)A*(A+1)
(%o6) A+1 --\> B
(%o7) A^2+A
Again, I'd like to approximate this expression to A^2 (B^2, whatever it's called).
I understand that this is, in general, a hard problem (is e.g. A^2 + 10^8*A still okay to approximate as A^2?) but I think that what I'm looking for is a function or method of calculation that would be a little bit smarter than subst and can recognize that the same substitution could be done in the expression A^2+A as in the expression 100*A^2+100*A or -A^2-A instead of making me create a list of three (or twenty) individual substitutions when calling subst. The "nice" part of the full expression that I'm working on is that each of these A factors are of the form k*A^n*(A+1)^m for various small integers n, m, so I never actually end up with the degenerate case mentioned above.
(I was briefly thinking of re-expressing my expression as a polynomial in A, but this will not work as the only valid approximation of the expression (A^3+A^2+A)*x + y is A^3*x + y -- I know nothing about the relative sizes of x and y.
Related
I have an expression that consists of functions of x and y, something like
ay+yf(x)+g(x)+bh(x)+k(y).
Is there a convenient method that removes all x-dependent terms and leaves ay+k(y)?
f,g,h,k are symbolic and not known functions.
As far as I know, dependence in maxima [defined with depends()] is only recognized in diff. I tried diff and then integrate/antidiff, but antidiff/integrate does not recognize y and b as constant, and gives an expression with integrals.
I want to use Maxima to get the prime factorization of a random positive integer, e.g. 12=2^2*3^1.
What I have tried so far:
a:random(20);
aa:abs(a);
fa:ifactors(aa);
ka:length(fa);
ta:1;
pfza: for i:1 while i<=ka do ta:ta*(fa[i][1])^(fa[i][2]);
ta;
This will be implemented in STACK for Moodle as part of a online exercise for students, so the exact implementation will be a little bit different from this, but I broke it down to these 7 lines.
I generate a random number a, make sure that it is a positive integer by using aa=|a|+1 and want to use the ifactors command to get the prime factors of aa. ka tells me the number of pairwise distinct prime factors which I then use for the while loop in pfza. If I let this piece of code run, it returns everything fine, execpt for simplifying ta, that is I don't get ta as a product of primes with some exponents but rather just ta=aa.
I then tried to turn off the simplifier, manually simplifying everything else that I need:
simp:false$
a:random(20);
aa:ev(abs(a),simp);
fa:ifactors(aa);
ka:ev(length(fa),simp);
ta:1;
pfza: for i:1 while i<=ka do ta:ta*(fa[i][1])^(fa[i][2]);
ta;
This however does not compile; I assume the problem is somewhere in the line for pfza, but I don't know why.
Any input on how to fix this? Or another method of getting the factorizing in a non-simplified form?
(1) The for-loop fails because adding 1 to i requires 1 + 1 to be simplified to 2, but simplification is disabled. Here's a way to make the loop work without requiring arithmetic.
(%i10) for f in fa do ta:ta*(f[1]^f[2]);
(%o10) done
(%i11) ta;
2 2 1
(%o11) ((1 2 ) 2 ) 3
Hmm, that's strange, again because of the lack of simplification. How about this:
(%i12) apply ("*", map (lambda ([f], f[1]^f[2]), fa));
2 1
(%o12) 2 3
In general I think it's better to avoid explicit indexing anyway.
(2) But maybe you don't need that at all. factor returns an unsimplified expression of the kind you are trying to construct.
(%i13) simp:true;
(%o13) true
(%i14) factor(12);
2
(%o14) 2 3
I think it's conceptually inconsistent for factor to return an unsimplified, but anyway it seems to work here.
So I would like to print polynomials in one variable (s) with one parameter (a), say
a·s^3 − s^2 - a^2·s − a + 1.
Sage always displays it with decreasing degree, and I would like to get something like
1 - a - a^2·s - s^2 + a·s^3
to export it to LaTeX. I can't figure out how to do this... Thanks in advance.
As an alternative to string manipulation, one can use the series expansion.
F = a*s^3 - s^2 - a^2*s - a + 1
F.series(s, F.degree(s)+1)
returns
(-a + 1) + (-a^2)*s + (-1)*s^2 + (a)*s^3
which appears to be what you wanted, save for some redundant parentheses.
This works because (a) a power series is ordered from lowest to highest coefficients; (b) making the order of remainder greater than the degree of the polynomial ensures that the series is just the polynomial itself.
This is not easy, because the sort order is defined in Pynac, a fork of Ginac, which Sage uses for its basic symbolic manipulation. However, depending on what you need, it is possible programmatically:
sage: F = 1 + x + x^2
sage: "+".join(map(str,sorted([f for f in F.operands()],key=lambda exp:exp.degree(x))))
'1+x+x^2'
I don't know whether this sort of thing is powerful enough for your needs, though. You may have to traverse the "expression tree" quite a bit but at least your sort of example seems to work.
sage: F = a + a^2*x + x^2 - a*x^2
sage: "+".join(map(str,sorted([f for f in F.operands()],key=lambda exp:exp.degree(x))))
'a+a^2*x+-a*x^2+x^2'
Doing this in a short statement requires a number of Python tricks like this, which are very well worth learning if you are going to use Sage (or Numpy, or pandas, or ...) a fair amount.
I'm trying to teach myself Prolog. Below, I've written some code that I think should return all paths between nodes in an undirected graph... but it doesn't. I'm trying to understand why this particular code doesn't work (which I think differentiates this question from similar Prolog pathfinding posts). I'm running this in SWI-Prolog. Any clues?
% Define a directed graph (nodes may or may not be "room"s; edges are encoded by "leads_to" predicates).
room(kitchen).
room(living_room).
room(den).
room(stairs).
room(hall).
room(bathroom).
room(bedroom1).
room(bedroom2).
room(bedroom3).
room(studio).
leads_to(kitchen, living_room).
leads_to(living_room, stairs).
leads_to(living_room, den).
leads_to(stairs, hall).
leads_to(hall, bedroom1).
leads_to(hall, bedroom2).
leads_to(hall, bedroom3).
leads_to(hall, studio).
leads_to(living_room, outside). % Note "outside" is the only node that is not a "room"
leads_to(kitchen, outside).
% Define the indirection of the graph. This is what we'll work with.
neighbor(A,B) :- leads_to(A, B).
neighbor(A,B) :- leads_to(B, A).
Iff A --> B --> C --> D is a loop-free path, then
path(A, D, [B, C])
should be true. I.e., the third argument contains the intermediate nodes.
% Base Rule (R0)
path(X,Y,[]) :- neighbor(X,Y).
% Inductive Rule (R1)
path(X,Y,[Z|P]) :- not(X == Y), neighbor(X,Z), not(member(Z, P)), path(Z,Y,P).
Yet,
?- path(bedroom1, stairs, P).
is false. Why? Shouldn't we get a match to R1 with
X = bedroom1
Y = stairs
Z = hall
P = []
since,
?- neighbor(bedroom1, hall).
true.
?- not(member(hall, [])).
true.
?- path(hall, stairs, []).
true .
?
In fact, if I evaluate
?- path(A, B, P).
I get only the length-1 solutions.
Welcome to Prolog! The problem, essentially, is that when you get to not(member(Z, P)) in R1, P is still a pure variable, because the evaluation hasn't gotten to path(Z, Y, P) to define it yet. One of the surprising yet inspiring things about Prolog is that member(Ground, Var) will generate lists that contain Ground and unify them with Var:
?- member(a, X).
X = [a|_G890] ;
X = [_G889, a|_G893] ;
X = [_G889, _G892, a|_G896] .
This has the confusing side-effect that checking for a value in an uninstantiated list will always succeed, which is why not(member(Z, P)) will always fail, causing R1 to always fail. The fact that you get all the R0 solutions and none of the R1 solutions is a clue that something in R1 is causing it to always fail. After all, we know R0 works.
If you swap these two goals, you'll get the first result you want:
path(X,Y,[Z|P]) :- not(X == Y), neighbor(X,Z), path(Z,Y,P), not(member(Z, P)).
?- path(bedroom1, stairs, P).
P = [hall]
If you ask for another solution, you'll get a stack overflow. This is because after the change we're happily generating solutions with cycles as quickly as possible with path(Z,Y,P), only to discard them post-facto with not(member(Z, P)). (Incidentally, for a slight efficiency gain we can switch to memberchk/2 instead of member/2. Of course doing the wrong thing faster isn't much help. :)
I'd be inclined to convert this to a breadth-first search, which in Prolog would imply adding an "open set" argument to contain solutions you haven't tried yet, and at each node first trying something in the open set and then adding that node's possibilities to the end of the open set. When the open set is extinguished, you've tried every node you could get to. For some path finding problems it's a better solution than depth first search anyway. Another thing you could try is separating the path into a visited and future component, and only checking the visited component. As long as you aren't generating a cycle in the current step, you can be assured you aren't generating one at all, there's no need to worry about future steps.
The way you worded the question leads me to believe you don't want a complete solution, just a hint, so I think this is all you need. Let me know if that's not right.
Is there any input that SHA-1 will compute to a hex value of fourty-zeros, i.e. "0000000000000000000000000000000000000000"?
Yes, it's just incredibly unlikely. I.e. one in 2^160, or 0.00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000006842277657836021%.
Also, becuase SHA1 is cryptographically strong, it would also be computationally unfeasible (at least with current computer technology -- all bets are off for emergent technologies such as quantum computing) to find out what data would result in an all-zero hash until it occurred in practice. If you really must use the "0" hash as a sentinel be sure to include an appropriate assertion (that you did not just hash input data to your "zero" hash sentinel) that survives into production. It is a failure condition your code will permanently need to check for. WARNING: Your code will permanently be broken if it does.
Depending on your situation (if your logic can cope with handling the empty string as a special case in order to forbid it from input) you could use the SHA1 hash ('da39a3ee5e6b4b0d3255bfef95601890afd80709') of the empty string. Also possible is using the hash for any string not in your input domain such as sha1('a') if your input has numeric-only as an invariant. If the input is preprocessed to add any regular decoration then a hash of something without the decoration would work as well (eg: sha1('abc') if your inputs like 'foo' are decorated with quotes to something like '"foo"').
I don't think so.
There is no easy way to show why it's not possible. If there was, then this would itself be the basis of an algorithm to find collisions.
Longer analysis:
The preprocessing makes sure that there is always at least one 1 bit in the input.
The loop over w[i] will leave the original stream alone, so there is at least one 1 bit in the input (words 0 to 15). Even with clever design of the bit patterns, at least some of the values from 0 to 15 must be non-zero since the loop doesn't affect them.
Note: leftrotate is circular, so no 1 bits will get lost.
In the main loop, it's easy to see that the factor k is never zero, so temp can't be zero for the reason that all operands on the right hand side are zero (k never is).
This leaves us with the question whether you can create a bit pattern for which (a leftrotate 5) + f + e + k + w[i] returns 0 by overflowing the sum. For this, we need to find values for w[i] such that w[i] = 0 - ((a leftrotate 5) + f + e + k)
This is possible for the first 16 values of w[i] since you have full control over them. But the words 16 to 79 are again created by xoring the first 16 values.
So the next step could be to unroll the loops and create a system of linear equations. I'll leave that as an exercise to the reader ;-) The system is interesting since we have a loop that creates additional equations until we end up with a stable result.
Basically, the algorithm was chosen in such a way that you can create individual 0 words by selecting input patterns but these effects are countered by xoring the input patterns to create the 64 other inputs.
Just an example: To make temp 0, we have
a = h0 = 0x67452301
f = (b and c) or ((not b) and d)
= (h1 and h2) or ((not h1) and h3)
= (0xEFCDAB89 & 0x98BADCFE) | (~0x98BADCFE & 0x10325476)
= 0x98badcfe
e = 0xC3D2E1F0
k = 0x5A827999
which gives us w[0] = 0x9fb498b3, etc. This value is then used in the words 16, 19, 22, 24-25, 27-28, 30-79.
Word 1, similarly, is used in words 1, 17, 20, 23, 25-26, 28-29, 31-79.
As you can see, there is a lot of overlap. If you calculate the input value that would give you a 0 result, that value influences at last 32 other input values.
The post by Aaron is incorrect. It is getting hung up on the internals of the SHA1 computation while ignoring what happens at the end of the round function.
Specifically, see the pseudo-code from Wikipedia. At the end of the round, the following computation is done:
h0 = h0 + a
h1 = h1 + b
h2 = h2 + c
h3 = h3 + d
h4 = h4 + e
So an all 0 output can happen if h0 == -a, h1 == -b, h2 == -c, h3 == -d, and h4 == -e going into this last section, where the computations are mod 2^32.
To answer your question: nobody knows whether there exists an input that produces all zero outputs, but cryptographers expect that there are based upon the simple argument provided by daf.
Without any knowledge of SHA-1 internals, I don't see why any particular value should be impossible (unless explicitly stated in the description of the algorithm). An all-zero value is no more or less probable than any other specific value.
Contrary to all of the current answers here, nobody knows that. There's a big difference between a probability estimation and a proof.
But you can safely assume it won't happen. In fact, you can safely assume that just about ANY value won't be the result (assuming it wasn't obtained through some SHA-1-like procedures). You can assume this as long as SHA-1 is secure (it actually isn't anymore, at least theoretically).
People doesn't seem realize just how improbable it is (if all humanity focused all of it's current resources on finding a zero hash by bruteforcing, it would take about xxx... ages of the current universe to crack it).
If you know the function is safe, it's not wrong to assume it won't happen. That may change in the future, so assume some malicious inputs could give that value (e.g. don't erase user's HDD if you find a zero hash).
If anyone still thinks it's not "clean" or something, I can tell you that nothing is guaranteed in the real world, because of quantum mechanics. You assume you can't walk through a solid wall just because of an insanely low probability.
[I'm done with this site... My first answer here, I tried to write a nice answer, but all I see is a bunch of downvoting morons who are wrong and can't even tell the reason why are they doing it. Your community really disappointed me. I'll still use this site, but only passively]
Contrary to all answers here, the answer is simply No.
The hash value always contains bits set to 1.