Is there a way to "propagate" a conjugate into a sum?
from sympy import *
k = symbols('k', cls=Idx)
K = symbols('K', type=Integer)
g = IndexedBase('g')
omega = symbols('\omega', real=True)
s = summation(exp(I*omega*k)*g[k], (k,0,K))
sconj=s.conjugate()
Now sconj is
How can I turn this expression into the one below? That is, apply the conjugate on the terms rather than the sum.
(Which I off course can obtain by taking the conjugate of the terms when creating the summation
summation((exp(I*omega*k)*g[k]).conjugate(), (k,0,K))
but think of the general case where this may be not so straightforward.)
Just in case someone else runs into this.
It is required to set the summation bound as Real, so changing the definition of K to
K = symbols('K', type=Integer, real=True)
did the trick.
Related
In Sympy one can obtain the representation of a polynomial's reduction by a Grobner basis:
from sympy import groebner, expand
from sympy.abc import x, y
f = 2*x**4 - x**2 + y**3 + y**2
G = groebner([x**3 - x, y**3 - y])
Q, r = G.reduce(f)
assert f == expand(sum(q*g for q, g in zip(Q, G)) + r)
But what I'm looking for is a way to get the expression of the elements of a Groebner basis in terms of the polynomials defining it, essentially just storing the computations performed in the Buchberger algorithm used in producing the basis.
For example
groebner([2*x+3*y+5, 3*x+5*y+2, 5*x+2*y+3]) # GroebnerBasis([1], x, y, domain='ZZ', order='lex')
It indicates that these three polynomials generate the unit ideal, but I would like an explicit combination of these polynomials that equals 1. In the example given it is a linear combination, but I would like a method that works with nonlinear as well.
In the first example I obtained Q,r. In the second example I obtained the analog of the remainder r but I would like the polynomials Q realizing it.
Similarly, the method G.contains() will indicate if the ideal contains the polynomial, but it won't tell you how to produce it. Is there a way to do this too?
Example: let
M = Matrix([[1,2],[3,4]]) # and
p = Poly(x**3 + x + 1) # then
p.subs(x,M).expand()
gives the error :
TypeError: cannot add <class'sympy.matrices.immutable.ImmutableDenseMatrix'> and <class 'sympy.core.numbers.One'>
which is very plausible since the two first terms become matrices but the last term (the constant term) is not a matrix but a scalar. To remediate to this situation I changed the polynomial to
p = Poly(x**3 + x + x**0) # then
the same error persists. Am I obliged to type the expression by hand, replacing x by M? In this example the polynomial has only three terms but in reality I encounter (multivariate polynomials with) dozens of terms.
So I think the question is mainly revolving around the concept of Matrix polynomial:
(where P is a polynomial, and A is a matrix)
I think this is saying that the free term is a number, and it cannot be added with the rest which is a matrix, effectively the addition operation is undefined between those two types.
TypeError: cannot add <class'sympy.matrices.immutable.ImmutableDenseMatrix'> and <class 'sympy.core.numbers.One'>
However, this can be circumvented by defining a function that evaluates the matrix polynomial for a specific matrix. The difference here is that we're using matrix exponentiation, so we correctly compute the free term of the matrix polynomial a_0 * I where I=A^0 is the identity matrix of the required shape:
from sympy import *
x = symbols('x')
M = Matrix([[1,2],[3,4]])
p = Poly(x**3 + x + 1)
def eval_poly_matrix(P,A):
res = zeros(*A.shape)
for t in enumerate(P.all_coeffs()[::-1]):
i, a_i = t
res += a_i * (A**i)
return res
eval_poly_matrix(p,M)
Output:
In this example the polynomial has only three terms but in reality I encounter (multivariate polynomials with) dozens of terms.
The function eval_poly_matrix above can be extended to work for multivariate polynomials by using the .monoms() method to extract monomials with nonzero coefficients, like so:
from sympy import *
x,y = symbols('x y')
M = Matrix([[1,2],[3,4]])
p = poly( x**3 * y + x * y**2 + y )
def eval_poly_matrix(P,*M):
res = zeros(*M[0].shape)
for m in P.monoms():
term = eye(*M[0].shape)
for j in enumerate(m):
i,e = j
term *= M[i]**e
res += term
return res
eval_poly_matrix(p,M,eye(M.rows))
Note: Some sanity checks, edge cases handling and optimizations are possible:
The number of variables present in the polynomial relates to the number of matrices passed as parameters (the former should never be greater than the latter, and if it's lower than some logic needs to be present to handle that, I've only handled the case when the two are equal)
All matrices need to be square as per the definition of the matrix polynomial
A discussion about a multivariate version of the Horner's rule features in the comments of this question. This might be useful to minimize the number of matrix multiplications.
Handle the fact that in a Matrix polynomial x*y is different from y*x because matrix multiplication is non-commutative . Apparently poly functions in sympy do not support non-commutative variables, but you can define symbols with commutative=False and there seems to be a way forward there
About the 4th point above, there is support for Matrix expressions in SymPy, and that can help here:
from sympy import *
from sympy.matrices import MatrixSymbol
A = Matrix([[1,2],[3,4]])
B = Matrix([[2,3],[3,4]])
X = MatrixSymbol('X',2,2)
Y = MatrixSymbol('Y',2,2)
I = eye(X.rows)
p = X**2 * Y + Y * X ** 2 + X ** 3 - I
display(p)
p = p.subs({X: A, Y: B}).doit()
display(p)
Output:
For more developments on this feature follow #18555
I'm trying to use sympy to generate equations for non-linear least squares fitting. My goal is to make this quite complex but for the moment, here's a simple case (but not too simple!). It's basically fitting a two dimensional sinusoid to data. Here's the sympy code:
from sympy import *
S, l, m = symbols('S l m', real=True)
u, v = symbols('u v', real=True)
Vobs = symbols('Vobs', complex=True)
Vres = Vobs - S * exp(- 1j * 2 * pi * (u*l+v*m))
J=Vres*conjugate(Vres)
axes = [S, l, m]
grad = derive_by_array(J, axes)
hess = derive_by_array(grad, axes)
One element of the grad term looks like:
- 2.0*I*pi*S*u*(-S*exp(-2.0*I*pi*(l*u + m*v)) + Vobs)*exp(2.0*I*pi*(l*u + m*v)) + 2.0*I*pi*S*u*(-S*exp(2.0*I*pi*(l*u + m*v)) + conjugate(Vobs))*exp(-2.0*I*pi*(l*u + m*v))
What I'd like is to replace the expanded term (-S*exp(-2.0*I*pi*(l*u + m*v)) + Vobs) by Vres and contract the two conjugate terms into the more compact equivalent is:
4.0*pi*S*u*im(Vres*exp(2.0*I*pi*(l*u + m*v)))
I cannot see how to do this with sympy. This problem is bad for the first derivative (grad) but get really out of hand with the second derivative (hess).
First of all, let's not use 1j in SymPy, it's a float and floats are bad for symbolic math. SymPy's imaginary unit is I. So,
Vres = Vobs - S * exp(- I * 2 * pi * (u*l+v*m))
To replace the expression Vres by a symbol, we first need to create such a symbol. I'm going to call it Vres0, but its name will be Vres, so it prints as "Vres" in formulas.
Vres0 = symbols('Vres')
g1 = grad[1].subs(Vres, Vres0).conjugate().subs(Vres, Vres0).conjugate()
The conjugate-substitute-conjugate back is needed because subs doesn't quite recognize the possibility of replacing the conjugate of an expression with the conjugate of the symbol.
Now g1 is
-2*I*pi*S*Vres*u*exp(2*I*pi*(l*u + m*v)) + 2*I*pi*S*u*exp(-2*I*pi*(l*u + m*v))*conjugate(Vres)
and we want to fold the sum of conjugate terms. I use a custom transformation rule for this: the rule fold_conjugates applies to every sum (Add) of two terms (len(f.args) == 2) where the second is a conjugate of the first (f.args[1] == f.args[0].conjugate()). The transformation it performs: replace the sum by twice the real part of first argument (2*re(f.args[0])). Like so:
from sympy.core.rules import Transform
fold_conjugates = Transform(lambda f: 2*re(f.args[0]),
lambda f: isinstance(f, Add) and len(f.args) == 2 and f.args[1] == f.args[0].conjugate())
g = g1.xreplace(fold_conjugates)
Final result: 4*pi*S*u*im(Vres*exp(2*I*pi*(l*u + m*v))).
Motivation. It is well known that generating function for Catalan numbers satisfies quadratic equation. I would like to have first several coefficients of a function, implicitly defined by an algebraic equation (not necessarily a quadratic one!).
Example.
import sympy as sp
sp.init_printing() # math as latex
from IPython.display import display
z = sp.Symbol('z')
F = sp.Function('F')(z)
equation = 1 + z * F**2 - F
display(equation)
solution = sp.solve(equation, F)[0]
display(solution)
display(sp.series(solution))
Question. The approach where we explicitly solve the equation and then expand it as power series, works only for low-degree equations. How to obtain first coefficients of formal power series for more complicated algebraic equations?
Related.
Since algebraic and differential framework may behave differently, I posted another question.
Sympy: how to solve differential equation in formal power series?
I don't know a built-in way, but plugging in a polynomial for F and equating the coefficients works well enough. Although one should not try to find all coefficients at once from a large nonlinear system; those will give SymPy trouble. I take iterative approach, first equating the free term to zero and solving for c0, then equating 2nd and solving for c1, etc.
This assumes a regular algebraic equation, in which the coefficient of z**k in the equation involves the k-th Taylor coefficient of F, and does not involve higher-order coefficients.
from sympy import *
z = Symbol('z')
d = 10 # how many coefficients to find
c = list(symbols('c:{}'.format(d))) # undetermined coefficients
for k in range(d):
F = sum([c[n]*z**n for n in range(k+1)]) # up to z**k inclusive
equation = 1 + z * F**2 - F
coeff_eqn = Poly(series(equation, z, n=k+1).removeO(), z).coeff_monomial(z**k)
c[k] = solve(coeff_eqn, c[k])[0]
sol = sum([c[n]*z**n for n in range(d)]) # solution
print(series(sol + z**d, z, n=d)) # add z**d to get SymPy to print as a series
This prints
1 + z + 2*z**2 + 5*z**3 + 14*z**4 + 42*z**5 + 132*z**6 + 429*z**7 + 1430*z**8 + 4862*z**9 + O(z**10)
I am wondering if there is a C/C++ library or Matlab code technique to determine real and complex numbers using a minimization solver. Here is a code snippet showing what I would like to do. For example, suppose that I know Utilde, but not x and U variables. I want to use optimization (fminsearch) to determine x and U, given Utilde. Note that Utilde is a complex number.
x = 1.5;
U = 50 + 1i*25;
x0 = [1 20]; % starting values
Utilde = U * (1 / exp(2 * x)) * exp( 1i * 2 * x);
xout = fminsearch(#(v)optim(v, Utilde), x0);
function diff = optim(v, Utilde)
x = v(1);
U = v(2);
diff = abs( -(Utilde/U) + (1 / exp(2 * x)) * exp( 1i * 2 * x ) );
The code above does not converge to the proper values, and xout = 1.7318 88.8760. However, if U = 50, which is not a complex number, then xout = 1.5000 50.0000, which are the proper values.
Is there a way in Matlab or C/C++ to ensure proper convergence, given Utilde as a complex number? Maybe I have to change the code above?
If there isn't a way to do this natively in Matlab, then perhaps one
gist of the question is this: Is there a multivariate (i.e.
Nelder-Mead or similar algorithm) optimization library that is able
to work with real and complex inputs and outputs?
Yet another question is whether the function is convergent or not. I
don't know if it is the algorithm or the function. Might I need to change something in the Utilde = U * (1 / exp(2 * x)) * exp( 1i * 2 * x) expression to make it convergent?
The main problem here is that there is no unique solution to this optimization or parameter fitting problem. For example, looking at the expected and actual results above, Utilde is equivalent (ignoring round-off differences) for the two (x, U) pairs, i.e.
Utilde(x = 1.5, U = 50 + 25i) = Utilde(x = 1.7318, U = 88.8760)
Although I have not examined it in depth, I even suspect that for any value of x, you can find an U that computes to Utilde(x, U) = Utilde(x = 1.5, U = 50 + 25i).
The solution here would thus be to further constrain the parameter fitting problem so that the solver yields any solution that can be considered acceptable. Alternatively, reformulate Utilde to have a unique value for any (x, U) pair.
UPDATE, AUG 1
Given reasonable starting values, it actually seems like it is sufficient to restrict x to be real-valued. Performing unconstrained non-linear optimization using the diff function formulated above, I get the following result:
x = 1.50462926953244
U = 50.6977768845879 + 24.7676554234729i
diff = 3.18731710515855E-06
However, changing the starting guess to values more distant from the desired values does yield different solutions, so restricting x to be real-values does not alone provide a unique solution to the problem.
I have implemented this in C#, using the BOBYQA optimizer, but the numerics should be the same as above. If you want to try outside of Matlab, it should also be relatively simple to turn the C# code below into C++ code using the std::complex class and an (unconstrained) nonlinear C++ optimizer of your own choice. You could find some C++ compatible codes that do not require gradient computation here, and there is also various implementations available in Numerical Recipes. For example, you could access the C version of NR online here.
For reference, here are the relevant parts of my C# code:
class Program
{
private static readonly Complex Coeff = new Complex(-2.0, 2.0);
private static readonly Complex UTilde0 = GetUTilde(1.5, new Complex(50.0, 25.0));
static void Main(string[] args)
{
double[] vars = new[] {1.0, 25.0, 0.0}; // xstart = 1.0, Ustart = 25.0
BobyqaExitStatus status = Bobyqa.FindMinimum(GetObjfnValue, vars.Length, vars);
}
public static Complex GetUTilde(double x, Complex U)
{
return U * Complex.Exp(Coeff * x);
}
public static double GetObjfnValue(int n, double[] vars)
{
double x = vars[0];
Complex U = new Complex(vars[1], vars[2]);
return Complex.Abs(-UTilde0 / U + Complex.Exp(Coeff * x));
}
}
The documentation for fminsearch says how to deal with complex numbers in the limitations section:
fminsearch only minimizes over the real numbers, that is, x must only consist of real numbers and f(x) must only return real numbers. When x has complex variables, they must be split into real and imaginary parts.
You can use the functions real and imag to extract the real and imaginary parts, respectively.
It appears that there is no easy way to do this, even if both x and U are real numbers. The equation for Utilde is not well-posed for an optimization problem, and so it must be modified.
I've tried to code up my own version of the Nelder-Mead optimization algorithm, as well as tried Powell's method. Neither seem to work well for this problem, even when I attempted to modify these methods.