Opened 10 years ago
Closed 4 years ago
#9424 closed defect (fixed)
Provide symbolic sum function with evalf
Reported by:  burcin  Owned by:  burcin 

Priority:  major  Milestone:  sage6.8 
Component:  symbolics  Keywords:  
Cc:  whuss, kcrisman, eviatarbach  Merged in:  
Authors:  Ralf Stephan  Reviewers:  Daniel Krenn 
Report Upstream:  N/A  Work issues:  
Branch:  4f7b161 (Commits)  Commit:  4f7b1610a3fd78eeea2e188605bccf3983a76490 
Dependencies:  #17759  Stopgaps: 
Description (last modified by )
Symbolics sums returned from maxima cannot be numerically evaluated, since they don't define an _evalf_()
method.
This was reported by dirkd on sagesupport:
Why is evaluating this expression problematical? y1(x)=x^2;y2(x)=5x; a0=1;an=3;Delta=(ana0)/n;p(k)=a0+(k1/2)*Delta; I(n)=sum(abs(y2(p(k))y1(p(k)))*Delta,k,1,n); N(I(10)) SAGE respons: <snipped traceback> File "expression.pyx", line 3797, in sage.symbolic.expression.Expression.n (sage/symbolic/expression.cpp: 17022) TypeError: cannot evaluate symbolic expression numerically
Here is the thread:
http://groups.google.com/group/sagesupport/t/615b15ca638c9652
See also #15346
Change History (35)
comment:1 Changed 10 years ago by
 Cc whuss added
comment:2 Changed 10 years ago by
 Cc kcrisman added
comment:3 Changed 7 years ago by
 Cc eviatarbach added
comment:4 Changed 7 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage5.11 to sage5.12
comment:5 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.1 to sage6.2
comment:6 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.2 to sage6.3
comment:7 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.3 to sageduplicate/invalid/wontfix
 Status changed from new to needs_review
comment:8 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sageduplicate/invalid/wontfix to sage6.3
 Type changed from defect to enhancement
I don't think any of these invalidate the ticket; the point is to extend the behavior. Why is 1. a problem? This seems like it should be a nice function to me. See Burcin's reply in the thread:
> If I leave out the N( )operator on the last line the block evaluates > to > > > 1/500*sum(abs(4*k^2  56*k + 329), k, 1, 10) > > which can be evaluated in a new inputbox. Why not in one step? The result returned from maxima uses a symbolic function object created on the fly. This is quite different from the sum() function available on the command line, and unfortunately, it doesn't define a numerical evaluation function, _evalf_().
Burcin knows this code very well, so I would be surprised if he misdiagnosed this. But I figure maybe changing to enhancement will appease everyone :)
comment:9 Changed 6 years ago by
Burcin is spoton:
sage: S=(I(10).operands()[0].operator()); S sum sage: type(S) <class 'sage.symbolic.function_factory.NewSymbolicFunction'>
(Note the "New", not "BuiltIn?" or similar. It's a completely generic placeholder) we just need a symbolic function hooked up that can do some mildly intelligent evaluation when asked for it.
Incidentally, we can just map back to maxima and do the right thing there:
sage: maxima_calculus(I(10)) ('sum(abs(4*_SAGE_VAR_k^2+56*_SAGE_VAR_k329),_SAGE_VAR_k,1,10))/500 sage: SR(maxima_calculus(I(10)).simplify_sum()) 1301/250
(I haven't checked if it's correct). You can see why the "simplify_sum" is required: the newly created "sum" function in SR is linked to the inert "'sum".
comment:10 Changed 6 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
comment:11 Changed 6 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.3 to sage6.4
comment:12 followup: ↓ 13 Changed 5 years ago by
comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 Changed 5 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Summary changed from numerical evaluation of symbolic sums to FP evaluation of symbolic sums fails
Replying to kcrisman:
Maybe it's time we fixed this.
It is not clear if forcing people to use N()
and getting a float, even if there is an integer simplification of the sum, is the right thing to do. Granted, the error thrown on N(I(10))
is a bug, and this ticket is about it. Here is a minimal example:
sage: (k,n) = var('k,n') sage: f(n)=sum(abs(k*k+n),k,1,n) sage: f(n=8) sum(abs(k^2 + 8), k, 1, 8) sage: N(f(8))
However, I would expect f(n=8).simplify()
or .expand()
to give me the result 162
, and this is #17422
comment:14 Changed 5 years ago by
 Description modified (diff)
 Type changed from enhancement to defect
comment:15 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_info
As #15346 would implement simplify_sum
, what remains for this ticket to do?
comment:16 Changed 5 years ago by
 Summary changed from FP evaluation of symbolic sums fails to Provide symbolic sum function with evalf
As #15346 would implement simplify_sum, what remains for this ticket to do?
I suppose there is the issue that one might not want to have to simplify in order to get a floatingpoint number. Really, we shouldn't require that. With #15346 one needs
sage: I(10).expand_sum().n()
but really I(10).n()
should suffice, and for that we need a symbolic sum function. I'll clarify the title, though, as you are right that this is at least now much more possible. I'll probably add the example as a reviewer patch on #15346, in fact.
comment:17 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_info to needs_work
comment:18 Changed 5 years ago by
This is a proof of conceptpatch that works, but only with bare sums. I guess the walk on the expression tree happens somewhere in Pynac.
diff git a/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx b/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx  a/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx +++ b/src/sage/symbolic/expression.pyx @@ 4847,6 +4847,19 @@ cdef class Expression(CommutativeRingElement): sage: all(len(str(e.n(digits=k)))1 >= k for k in ks) True + We also allow evaluation of unexpanded symbolic sums + with numeric limits (:trac:`9424`):: + + sage: (k,n) = var('k,n') + sage: f(n) = sum(abs(k*k+n), k, 1, n) + sage: f(n=8) + sum(abs(k^2 + 8), k, 1, 8) + sage: f(n=8).n() + 162.0 + sage: f(n=x).n() + Traceback (most recent call last): + ... + TypeError: cannot evaluate symbolic expression numerically """ if prec is None: if digits is None: @@ 4865,11 +4878,16 @@ cdef class Expression(CommutativeRingElement): x = self._convert(kwds) # we have to consider constants as well, since infinity is a constant  # in pynac + # in pynac. Also, catch symbolic sums with numeric limits. if is_a_numeric(x._gobj): res = py_object_from_numeric(x._gobj)  elif is_a_constant(x._gobj): + elif is_a_constant(x._gobj): res = x.pyobject() + elif x.operator().name() == 'sum' and ( + is_a_numeric((<Expression>x.operands()[2])._gobj) + and is_a_numeric((<Expression>x.operands()[3])._gobj)): + from sage.calculus.calculus import symbolic_sum + return symbolic_sum(*(x.operands())) else: raise TypeError("cannot evaluate symbolic expression numerically")
but
sage: (k,n) = var('k,n') sage: f(n) = sum(abs(k*k+n),k,1,n) sage: 1+f(n=8) sum(abs(k^2 + 8), k, 1, 8) + 1 sage: _.n() BOOM
comment:19 Changed 5 years ago by
 Branch set to u/rws/provide_symbolic_sum_function_with_evalf
comment:20 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit set to 32bca6ab2b1cd43e92fb3bdc262c93a9e8ca6540
 Dependencies set to #17759
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:21 followup: ↓ 22 Changed 5 years ago by
You'd think that given the massive amounts of snow here lately I'd have time to carefully look this over  but I don't :(
However I think this looks like a good start at a solution, and definitely the first commit is an improvement in any case  perhaps one that deserves its own ticket, for quicker review? (There might be more people interested in that, honestly.) Unless someone complained with the name change  but it was never globally imported and frankly we do need a general expression tree walker more easily accessible, see #9329 for instance. So connecting this (not here, maybe) to the Converter
class it inherits from and explaining when one would use each one would be useful too.
The main concern I have in terms of the main purpose of the ticket is to adequately test and debug DefiniteSumExpander
, especially since it is in the code in such a way that it isn't doctested (other than the case in question).
comment:22 in reply to: ↑ 21 ; followup: ↓ 23 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
However I think this looks like a good start at a solution, and definitely the first commit is an improvement in any case  perhaps one that deserves its own ticket, for quicker review?
I don't understand. You did see the number #17759?
The main concern I have in terms of the main purpose of the ticket is to adequately test and debug
DefiniteSumExpander
, especially since it is in the code in such a way that it isn't doctested (other than the case in question).
Most of it is doctested in #17759, i.e., its base class.
comment:23 in reply to: ↑ 22 ; followup: ↓ 24 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
However I think this looks like a good start at a solution, and definitely the first commit is an improvement in any case  perhaps one that deserves its own ticket, for quicker review?
I don't understand. You did see the number #17759?
Nope! I really didn't have a lot of time  never even saw the dependency field. Maybe I shouldn't look at tickets after shoveling ;)
Most of it is doctested in #17759, i.e., its base class.
I did see that doctesting, I just would want to see what was different in the sum case.
I'll keep these on the front burner.
comment:24 in reply to: ↑ 23 Changed 5 years ago by
Replying to kcrisman:
I did see that doctesting, I just would want to see what was different in the sum case.
There the composition
method is overwritten (and tested).
comment:25 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
sage t long src/sage/functions/hypergeometric.py # 11 doctests failed sage t long src/sage/functions/trig.py # 1 doctest failed
comment:26 Changed 5 years ago by
Fixing these doctests will need the solutions found for fixing #17849 (or vice versa).
comment:27 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 32bca6ab2b1cd43e92fb3bdc262c93a9e8ca6540 to 27a16927956651abf9361d8c0a12dffb00cba963
Branch pushed to git repo; I updated commit sha1. New commits:
5a1ac7e  Merge branch 'develop' into t/9424/provide_symbolic_sum_function_with_evalf

9375510  Merge branch 'develop' into t/17759/public/17759

16aa81d  17759: handle hold=True and hypergeometric

1f4edf2  Merge branch 'public/17759' of trac.sagemath.org:sage into t/9424/provide_symbolic_sum_function_with_evalf

27a1692  9424: delegate to superclass; fix doctest

comment:28 Changed 5 years ago by
 Milestone changed from sage6.4 to sage6.6
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:29 Changed 5 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/rws/provide_symbolic_sum_function_with_evalf to u/rws/9424
comment:30 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from 27a16927956651abf9361d8c0a12dffb00cba963 to b213d69bf13e1c7e21d2da2868bfd7908f5d31eb
 Milestone changed from sage6.6 to sage6.8
comment:31 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_review to needs_work
TestsFailed
(says the patchbot)
comment:32 Changed 5 years ago by
 Commit changed from b213d69bf13e1c7e21d2da2868bfd7908f5d31eb to 4f7b1610a3fd78eeea2e188605bccf3983a76490
comment:33 Changed 5 years ago by
 Status changed from needs_work to needs_review
comment:34 Changed 4 years ago by
 Reviewers set to Daniel Krenn
 Status changed from needs_review to positive_review
LGTM
comment:35 Changed 4 years ago by
 Branch changed from u/rws/9424 to 4f7b1610a3fd78eeea2e188605bccf3983a76490
 Resolution set to fixed
 Status changed from positive_review to closed
Your problem is threefold: 1. you use
n
both as sum endpoint and variable, 2. Sagesum
is only intended with symbolic endpoints, and 3. the need to use Python summation may require defining a Python function instead of a Sage symbolic function: