Re: Solve Feature?

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg52843] Re: Solve Feature?*From*: Daniel Lichtblau <danl at wolfram.com>*Date*: Tue, 14 Dec 2004 06:00:02 -0500 (EST)*References*: <200412100123.UAA18967@smc.vnet.net> <opsir6lsn2iz9bcq@monster.ma.dl.cox.net> <002401c4dfb5$809b6a00$1802a8c0@Pentium4> <opsiu9j4nmiz9bcq@monster.ma.dl.cox.net> <opsiu90xstiz9bcq@monster.ma.dl.cox.net>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

DrBob wrote: > By the way, it gets even worse if I use NSolve: > > solution = NSolve[{c1, c5}] > {c1, c5} /. solution > Apply[Subtract, {c1, c5}, {1}] /. solution > > {{x -> -4.27759132*^8, > y -> 43.74999927054117}, > {x -> 4.2775924*^8, > y -> 43.75000072945884}} > {{False, False}, {False, False}} > {{1.82977917785309*^17, > 1.82977917785309*^17}, > {1.8297792462945597*^17, > 1.8297792462945597*^17}} > > These are simple polynomial equations, so this is really puzzling. > > Bobby > > On Sat, 11 Dec 2004 17:15:30 -0600, DrBob <drbob at bigfoot.com> wrote: > >> HELP!! Here are two very simple quadratic equations (circles): >> >> {c1, c5} = {(-50 + x)^2 + (-50 + y)^2 == 156.25, >> (-50.00000000000002 + x)^2 + >> (-37.49999999999999 + y)^2 == 156.25}; >> >> If we rationalize before solving, we get accurate solutions: >> >> solution = Solve@Rationalize@{c1, c5} >> solution // N >> {c1, c5} /. solution >> Subtract @@@ {c1, c5} /. solution >> >> {{x -> (25/4)*(8 - Sqrt[3]), y -> 175/4}, >> {x -> (25/4)*(8 + Sqrt[3]), y -> 175/4}} >> {{x -> 39.17468245269452, y -> 43.75}, >> {x -> 60.82531754730548, y -> 43.75}} >> {{True, True}, {True, True}} >> {{-4.263256414560601*^-14, 4.973799150320701*^-13}, >> {-4.263256414560601*^-14, -4.263256414560601*^-13}} >> >> You can check this visually with ImplicitPlot: >> >> ImplicitPlot[{c1, c5}, {x, -40, 70}] >> >> But if we solve without Rationalize, we get wildly inaccurate results: >> >> solution = Solve@{c1, c5} >> {c1, c5} /. solution >> Subtract @@@ {c1, c5} /. solution >> >> {{x -> 16., y -> 43.74999999999993}, >> {x -> 84., y -> 43.75000000000004}} >> {{False, False}, {False, False}} >> {{1038.812500000001, 1038.8125000000005}, >> {1038.8124999999995, 1038.8124999999993}} >> >> I'm using version 5.1. >> >> Bobby The behavior of Solve with these approximate inputs is subject to the vagaries of how it creates an infinite precision problem. As this one is poorly conditioned it is not too surprising that it does not give a good result. I'll point out that with VerifySolutions->True Solve will use significance arithmetic throughout, and this is sufficient (in this case) to get a viable result. The NSolve result is more troublesome. I tracked it to some difficulty in assessing either of two important facts. (1) The precision used in an eigen decomposition is not adequate for the problem at hand. (2) The result gives a large residual for the inputs when normalized in what I believe to be a reasonable way (obviously we can make the residual as large or small as we please by suitably rescaling the input). It is not too hard to fix the code for either of these but there are drawbacks. The second issue came about from a poor choice on my part of what to check: I used a numerical Groebner basis instead of the original inputs. So this can (and will) be addressed. In those cases where it catches trouble (as in this example) the fix is to redo certain computations at higher precision. As the code for this is already present the only issue is in the detection itself. The down side is that I am not certain it will be adequate to assess poor solutions in general, though it works reasonably well for this example. For the first issue I am right now at a loss. It seems that the numeric EigenXXX code gives a very poor result for a particular 2x2 matrix that appears in the course of the NSolve code. It is not too hard to figure out for a given matrix that the numeric eigen decomposition might be troublesome. Unfortunately that involves finding numeric singular values, and I believe that tends to be typically more expensive than the EigenXXX computation itself. So the problem becomes one of efficiency: detection of the problem cases could make all NSolve calls slower just to find the rare bad apples. I'll give this some more thought. Another possible issue is in how the numeric Groebner basis gets computed. This is something I also need to look at more closely. It appears that for one variable order the result is quite tame, but not for the other (NSolve[polys, {y,x}] works fine). I'm not yet certain but I think the nuemric instability at this step is essentially unavoidable. I believe this to be the case because I can find "nearby" polynomial systems for which a problematic Groebner basis will emerge (and in fact that happens in this example). It is not actually incorrect, but causes numeric problems at low precision for the eigen decomposition on a matrix formed from that Groebner basis. Whatever the outcome of investigating that numeric Groebner basis part, EigenXXX computation needs to sort out how to handle the resulting matrix. So this part at least is a bug to be fixed. Daniel Lichtblau Wolfram Research

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: Solve Feature?***From:*Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz@mimuw.edu.pl>

**References**:**Solve bug?***From:*paul@selfreferral.com

**Re: Solve Feature?**

**Re: multiple outputs from a function**

**Re: Re: Solve Feature?**

**Re: Re: Solve Feature?**