Opened 2 years ago
Last modified 19 months ago
#23368 new enhancement
More immediate symbolic powers simplification
Reported by:  rws  Owned by:  

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage8.2 
Component:  symbolics  Keywords:  
Cc:  charpent  Merged in:  
Authors:  Reviewers:  
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  Commit:  
Dependencies:  Stopgaps: 
Description
We already do:
sage: sqrt(4/9*x) 2/3*sqrt(x) sage: sqrt(4*x) 2*sqrt(x) sage: (4*x + 12)^(3) 1/64/(x + 3)^3 sage: (4/9*x)^(3/2) 8/27*x^(3/2)
This should be extended to rational exponents of sums:
sage: sqrt(4*x4) sqrt(4*x  4) sage: (4*x + 12)^(3/2) (4*x + 12)^(3/2)
It's a matter of implementing the case add^rational
in Pynac's power::eval
Change History (16)
comment:1 Changed 2 years ago by
 Cc charpent added
comment:2 Changed 2 years ago by
comment:3 followup: ↓ 4 Changed 2 years ago by
Fact is, there is already such simplification with integer exponents. Please give an example where extension to rational should not be allowed. Note also there is a canonical form Pynac adheres to and that affects if this simplification is applied (leading coeff positive). Note too that the long term goal is to become more independent from Maxima, for known reasons.
comment:4 in reply to: ↑ 3 Changed 2 years ago by
Replying to rws:
Fact is, there is already such simplification with integer exponents. Please give an example where extension to rational should not be allowed.
No example on hand at the moment, but ISTR to have been bitten by tooeager simplifications in integration of trig functions (undergradlevel exercises...) : "obvious" changes of variable became largely unobvious, and some factorizations were missed.
Note also there is a canonical form Pynac adheres to and that affects if this simplification is applied (leading coeff positive).
And that sometimes gives birth to strange expressions, that have to be remassaged. A minimal example (quoted from memory, no Sage available ATM) :
var("y,z,k,theta", domain="positive") assume(k,"noninteger") dbeta(y,k,theta)=y^(k1)*e^(y/theta)/(theta^k*gamma(k) integrate(dbeta(z,k,theta)*dbeta(yz,k,theta),z,0,y) ## Fails (returns an unevaluated integral) integrate((dbeta(z,k,theta)*dbeta(yz,k,theta)).expand(),z,0,y) ## Succeeds
Note too that the long term goal is to become more independent from Maxima, for known reasons.
Agreed. But I have to confess that, to me at least, Maxima is muche easier to grasp than Pynac (my command of C++ is not up to the level of mt grasp of Lisp and Maxima...).
comment:5 Changed 2 years ago by
 Branch set to u/rws/more_immediate_symbolic_powers_simplification
comment:6 Changed 2 years ago by
 Commit set to b17dedb7119612ad055035e8829f235d7c33adc8
You can try it out. I added the Pynac patch in this branch, so you can see yourself which doctests fail and how they fail. Test the directories symbolic
, calculus
, tests
, and src/doc
to see the effects of this patch.
New commits:
b17dedb  23368: More immediate symbolic powers simplification

comment:7 Changed 2 years ago by
 Commit changed from b17dedb7119612ad055035e8829f235d7c33adc8 to 3cd17f5aeafac08fbd04bf685b1ec85809201124
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
3cd17f5  23368: new patch

comment:8 Changed 2 years ago by
Actually a better alternative is to draw only the rational part of the root outside. The new patch does it and "fails" only these tests:
File "src/sage/calculus/calculus.py", line 233, in sage.calculus.calculus Failed example: f.derivative(x) Expected: 1/3/sqrt(1/9*x^2 + 1) Got: 1/sqrt(x^2 + 9) File "src/sage/functions/hypergeometric.py", line 776, in sage.functions.hypergeometric.closed_form Failed example: closed_form(hypergeometric([1, 1, 2], [1, 1], z)) Expected: (z  1)^(2) Got: 1/(z  1)^2
Do you agree the failures are okay?
I'm still investigating the fails in src/doc
.
comment:9 Changed 2 years ago by
 Commit changed from 3cd17f5aeafac08fbd04bf685b1ec85809201124 to ed4dece5d1690a6c4f30937041676e2027e9d7ca
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
ed4dece  23368: fix patch

comment:10 Changed 2 years ago by
 Branch u/rws/more_immediate_symbolic_powers_simplification deleted
 Commit ed4dece5d1690a6c4f30937041676e2027e9d7ca deleted
 Dependencies set to pynac0.7.10
 Report Upstream changed from Reported upstream. No feedback yet. to Fixed upstream, in a later stable release.
After the last fix I feel justified to introduce this change in Pynac0.7.10. I'll remove the branch now but it can still be checked out for testing. This ticket now depends on a future Pynac upgrade ticket, and it should add the bool...
doctest and some more for good measure.
comment:11 Changed 23 months ago by
There were complications, see https://trac.sagemath.org/ticket/23325#comment:21 So a full implementation depends on improved simplifcation, probably outside Maxima.
comment:12 Changed 19 months ago by
 Dependencies changed from pynac0.7.10 to pynac0.7.14
 Milestone changed from sage8.1 to sage8.2
 Report Upstream changed from Fixed upstream, in a later stable release. to N/A
Examples and doctests that would change:
sage: sqrt(4*x4) 2*sqrt(x  1) sage: (4*x + 12)^(3/2) 1/8/(x + 3)^(3/2) Expected: 1/4*sqrt(5) + 1/4*I*sqrt(2*sqrt(5) + 10)  1/4 Got: 1/4*I*sqrt(2)*sqrt(sqrt(5) + 5) + 1/4*sqrt(5)  1/4 Expected: (1)^floor(1/2*x/pi)*sqrt(1/2*cos(x) + 1/2) Got: sqrt(1/2)*(1)^floor(1/2*x/pi)*sqrt(cos(x) + 1) Expected: 1/2*(1/18*sqrt(23)*sqrt(3)  1/2)^(1/3)*(I*sqrt(3) + 1)  1/6*(I*sqrt(3) + 1)/(1/18*sqrt(23)*sqrt(3)  1/2)^(1/3) Got: 1/2*(1/18)^(1/3)*(sqrt(23)*sqrt(3)  9)^(1/3)*(I*sqrt(3) + 1)  3*(1/18)^(2/3)*(I*sqrt(3) + 1)/(sqrt(23)*sqrt(3)  9)^(1/3) Expected: 1/8*sqrt(5) + 1/4*sqrt(3/2*sqrt(5) + 15/2)  1/8 Got: 1/4*sqrt(3/2)*sqrt(sqrt(5) + 5)  1/8*sqrt(5)  1/8 Expected: 1/4*sqrt(2*sqrt(6)  2*sqrt(2) + 8) Got: 1/4*sqrt(2)*sqrt(sqrt(6)  sqrt(2) + 4)
That sqrt(23)*sqrt(3)
is not combined should be addressed elsewhere.
comment:13 followup: ↓ 15 Changed 19 months ago by
There would be 30 doctest changes in the 5 main symbolic directories alone. I'm not prepared to push this as default behaviourbut maybe as separate method.
comment:14 Changed 19 months ago by
The code has been archived at: https://github.com/pynac/pynac/pull/292
comment:15 in reply to: ↑ 13 Changed 19 months ago by
Replying to rws:
There would be 30 doctest changes in the 5 main symbolic directories alone. I'm not prepared to push this as default behaviour
Exactly why I got cold feet with the (much smaller) distribution of a few operations over sum
and product
, and created distribute
. Seconded.
but maybe as separate method.
canonicalize_power(s)
(parallel to canonicalize_radical
) ?
Another possibility to discuss : extend canonicalize_radical
: same category of operations, but this would change its definition.
comment:16 Changed 19 months ago by
 Dependencies pynac0.7.14 deleted
Yes, third possibility is to extend factor
with a powers=True
argument. In any case I need to think about how to implement it conditionally in Pynac.
Thanks for Cc'ing me !
I'm not convinced that's necessarily the Right Thing (TM) to do : it might prohibit more interesting operations, such as factorization after
expand()
.I was thinking of adding (after 8.0) a few methods for symbolic expressions, such as
x.simplify_sum()
(a wrapper forx.maxima_methods().ev(simpsum=True
) and possibly a collection of usefulbutnotalwayspertinent transformations (such as trig (e. g. conversions totan(x/2)
, rewriting products as sums and viceversa, etc...) that might be easier to call at willwityh such "syntactic sugar" methods.Changing Maxima's domain can be done easily enough for one evaluation of a given expression E by asking
E.maxima_methods().ev(domain=real)
, or for the long term viamaxima_calculus("domain:real")
.Could we take a bit of time to think about what would be useful to implement in such methods ? This simplification is an obvious candidate, but probably not the only one, and probably not as a systematic simplification.
I'm also considering extending
E.distribute()
to the case of the distribution of a differentiation over a sum ; I'm not yet convinced it is useful, but I'm looking for reasons (pro or contra).BTW, this (as well as your previous work on symbolic sums and products) and the recent
distribute()
should be reported back to Maxima (but the implementation is not as easy in Maxima/lisp as in Sage...).Furthermore, let's not forget that "Syntactic sucar causes cancer of the semicolon" (A. J. Perlis, IIRC) : in other words, let's not paint ourselves in a toodifficulttomaintain corner.