Re: Transformation rule problem

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg58201] Re: Transformation rule problem*From*: "Peltio" <peltio at trilight.zone>*Date*: Wed, 22 Jun 2005 01:55:44 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <d90slm$8tt$1@smc.vnet.net> <d98p6t$efu$1@smc.vnet.net>*Reply-to*: "Peltio" <peltioNOSPAM at despammed.com.invalid>*Sender*: owner-wri-mathgroup at wolfram.com

"Oliver Buerschaper" wrote >> rulen[a_, b_][d_] = a^n_*b^m_ :> d*(a^(n - 1)*b^(m - 1)); >> rulea[a_, b_][d_] = a*b^m_ :> d*b^(m - 1); >> ruleb[a_, b_][d_] = a^n_*b :> d*a^(n - 1); >> >> mySimplify[expr_, a_ b_ -> d_] := >> (expr //. rulen[a, b][d]) /. {rulea[a, b][d], ruleb[a, b][d]} >> >> This only works when a and b are not "mixable", i.e. they are immediately >> identifiable by sheer pattern matching. > >What do you mean by this? I gather you want the simplification to work with a and b being functions. So, take for example a=Sin[x] and b=1/Cos[x], and you want a b -> d first of all the call to the function mySimplify[expr,Sin[x]*1/Cos[x]->d] will be automaticall evaluated to mySimplify[expr, Tan[x]->d] and this will not be evaluated further since the signature is not the same as that of mySimplify moreover even if you define a signature for mySimplify to accept separate arguments, such as mySimplify[expr_, a_,b_,d_], the product of the two functions can turn into something that has little to do with them ("patternwise"). This again is the case for Sin[x] and 1/Cos[x] and, last but not least, suppose you also add a signature to take care of the transformation of the product of a and b into c, you should then add at least a rule to make c->d as in mySimplify[expr_, c_, { a_, b_ } -> d_] := (expr //. rulen[a, b][d]) /. {rulea[a, b][d], ruleb[a, b][d]} /. c -> d Now that I think about this, there can also be problems when you work with symbols and radicals. The substitution Sqrt[a] Sqrt[b] -> Sqrt[d] won't work. For example: a=Sqrt[Sin[x]], b=Sqrt[1/Cos[x] and d=Sqrt[Tan[x]] will have mySimplify return expr unaffected. The square root is a well known pattern matching trap : ). So, more rules are needed, at least with my approach. I haven't checked the other posters' solutions but, having learnt to appreciate their skills, I'm confident that you will find a brilliant solution to these shortcomings. cheers, Peltio invalid address in reply to. crafty demunging required to mail me.

**Re: Re: associative arrays**

**Re: plot**

**Re: Transformation rule problem**

**can anyone solve this equation?**