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.