Mathematica 9 is now available
Services & Resources / Wolfram Forums
-----
 /
MathGroup Archive
2004
*January
*February
*March
*April
*May
*June
*July
*August
*September
*October
*November
*December
*Archive Index
*Ask about this page
*Print this page
*Give us feedback
*Sign up for the Wolfram Insider

MathGroup Archive 2004

[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

Search the Archive

Re: Symbolic computation with vector fields and tensors

  • To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
  • Subject: [mg46809] Re: Symbolic computation with vector fields and tensors
  • From: Jens-Peer Kuska <kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de>
  • Date: Tue, 9 Mar 2004 04:30:52 -0500 (EST)
  • Organization: Universitaet Leipzig
  • References: <c2enl5$sr8$1@smc.vnet.net>
  • Reply-to: kuska at informatik.uni-leipzig.de
  • Sender: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

Hi,

for your first problem try

Unprotect[Plus]

(lst_Plus)[args___] := #[args] & /@ lst

Protect[Plus]

And the linearity of Derivative[][] can be defined as

Unprotect[Derivative]

Derivative[pos__][args__Plus] := Derivative[pos][#] & /@ args

Derivative[pos__][a_*b__] := Derivative[pos][a]*b + a*Derivative[pos][b]

Protect[Derivative]

Regards
  Jens

J Krugman wrote:
> 
> I'm trying to set up a symbolic computation involving covariant and
> contravariant vector fields, and second-order covariant tensors.
> Mathematica is probably the best tool for this, but I'm having a hard
> time getting past square one.
> 
> My first problem is in getting Mathematica to recognize the standard
> algebra of functions, whereby "f + g" denotes the function whose value
> at x is f[x] + g[x], etc.  For example:
> 
>   In[1]=
>   f[x_] := x+1;
>   g[x_] := 3x;
>   h = f + g;
>   h[x]
> 
>   Out[4]=
>   (f+g)[x]
> 
> I know that I can always define h "pointwise" with the statement
> h[x_]:=f[x]+g[x], instead of the "functional" approach I use above,
> but I want to avoid this if possible.  I'm also aware of Through, but
> I want Mathematica to perform these conversions automatically (e.g. in
> respond to Expand) without prompting from me.
> 
> A trickier problem is illustrated by the following. L and M are two
> differential operators, and the map LD returns the differential
> operator obtained from the commutator (in the sense of composition) of
> its two arguments:
> 
> In[5]:=
> L[f_] := A[1] Derivative[1, 0][f] + A[2] Derivative[0, 1][f];
> M[f_] := B[1] Derivative[1, 0][f] + B[2] Derivative[0, 1][f];
> LD[L_, M_][f_] := Composition[L, M][f] - Composition[M, L][f];
> LD[L, M][f]//Expand//OutputForm
> 
>   In[5]:=
>   L[f_] := A[1] Derivative[1, 0][f] + A[2] Derivative[0, 1][f];
>   M[f_] := B[1] Derivative[1, 0][f] + B[2] Derivative[0, 1][f];
>   LD[L_, M_][f_] := Composition[L, M][f] - Composition[M, L][f];
>   LD[L, M][f]//Expand//OutputForm
> 
>   Out[8]//OutputForm=
>                 (0,1)         (1,0) (0,1)
>   -(B[2] (A[2] f      + A[1] f     )     ) +
> 
>                 (0,1)         (1,0) (0,1)
>     A[2] (B[2] f      + B[1] f     )      -
> 
>                 (0,1)         (1,0) (1,0)
>     B[1] (A[2] f      + A[1] f     )      +
> 
>                 (0,1)         (1,0) (1,0)
>     A[1] (B[2] f      + B[1] f     )
> 
> How can I get Mathematica to compute, for example, the first partial
> derivative of
> 
>           (0,1)         (1,0)
>    (A[2] f      + A[1] f     )
> 
> and do so automatically (e.g. in response to Expand).  In fact,
> how can I get Mathematica to acknowledge the linearity of the
> derivative and Leibniz's rule?
> 
>    In[12]:=
>    Expand[Derivative[1,0][a b + c d]]//OutputForm
> 
>    Out[12]//OutputForm=
>               (1,0)
>    (a b + c d)
> 
> (Incidentally, I need Derivative, and not D, because I want to be
> able to specify partial derivatives in terms of sets of
> subscripts/superscripts.)
> 
> I wish I had better technical documentation for Mathematica.  The
> Mathematica Book is basically a large collection of examples, which,
> however clever or illuminating, is no substitute for formal APIs.
> The number of important details that the Mathematica Book, despite
> its heft, leaves unsaid is vast.  As a result, I end up figuring
> out these details by sheer trial and error.  (I know that Mr.
> Wolfram is very enthusiastic about "computer experimentation", but
> I trust that he is not trying to promote it by making the Mathematica's
> documentation cryptic.)  In some cases, like those that lead to
> this post, my trial and error gets me nowhere.  Is there anything
> better as far as technical reference material for Mathematica goes?
> 
> Thanks!
> 
> jill
> 
> P.S. To send me mail, splice out the string bit from my address.


  • Prev by Date: Re: Remote mathkernel through firewall behind NAT
  • Next by Date: RE: Symbolic computation with vector fields and tensors
  • Previous by thread: Symbolic computation with vector fields and tensors
  • Next by thread: RE: Symbolic computation with vector fields and tensors