Re: Re: Re: solve and Abs

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg69530] Re: [mg69456] Re: [mg69398] Re: solve and Abs*From*: Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>*Date*: Thu, 14 Sep 2006 06:57:28 -0400 (EDT)

On 14 Sep 2006, at 08:21, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote: > > On 13 Sep 2006, at 23:51, Daniel Lichtblau wrote: > >> Andrzej Kozlowski wrote: >>> On 12 Sep 2006, at 20:40, Peter Pein wrote: >>>> Andrzej Kozlowski schrieb: >>>> >>>>> >>>>> On 10 Sep 2006, at 20:20, Peter Pein wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>>> Richard J. Fateman schrieb: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Is there a reason (in 5.1) for Solve[x-Abs[x]==0,x] to return >>>>>>> {{}}? >>>>>>> This supposedly means all variables can have all possible >>>>>>> values. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Reduce does better. >>>>>>> >>>>>> >>>>>> Oops, I should have read further... >>>>>> Help says >>>>>> "Solve gives {{}} if all variables can have all possible values." >>>>>> I would consider this a bug, not a feature. >>>>>> >>>>>> Sorry for overhasty posting, >>>>>> Peter >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> However, the documentation does not say "Solve gives {{}} if >>>>> and only if all variables can have all possible values." There >>>>> are other cases when Solve returns {{}}. For example, Solve >>>>> also gives {{}} when, for example, there is no "generic" >>>>> solution. (This is stated in the Help also). In addition, >>>>> although this does not seem to be stated, Solve never returns >>>>> solutions that would have to be given in conditional form >>>>> (like the solution returned in this example by Reduce). This >>>>> does not appear to be stated in the help but has been pointed >>>>> out several times on this list. >>>>> >>>>> Andrzej Kozlowski >>>>> Tokyo, Japan >>>>> >>>> >>>> all variables can have all possible values =:AVAPV >>>> solve rteurns {{}} =:SRE >>>> >>>> But if AVAPV=>SRE but not SRE=>AVAPV, what use has SRE? It would >>>> be better to admit "no solutions found" (by returning {}). >>>> Or am I completely wrong? >>>> >>>> Confused greetings, >>>> Peter >>> Oops, I think you are right. In fact, when Solve can find no >>> generic solutions it returns {} and not {{}}. >>> Solve[{x + y == 1, x + y == a}, {x, y}] >>> {} >>> So it does seem that {} has a different meaning from {{}}, which >>> makes me now also confused ;-) >>> Andrzej >> >> An empty result, {}, indicates that either there are no generic >> solutions (as in the case above, because all solutions force a >> parameter constraint a==1), or else that Solve found no solutions >> (can happen e.g. with transcendentals that get "algebraicized" but >> then fail to yield viable solutions using Solve's creaky technology). >> >> An AVAPV result, in the terminology above, is a different fish. It >> means any value for the solve variable(s) will satisfy the >> "polynomialized" problem. So what does that mean? In the simple >> case that began this thread, Abs[x] is converted to Sqrt[x^2] >> (which many will realize is already a mistake off the real line. >> C'est la vie.) We make a new variable y which "encapsulates" Sqrt >> [x^2], and new equation y^2==(Sqrt[x^2])^2==x^2. So we are doing, >> in effect, >> >> Solve[{x==y,y^2==x^2}, x, y] >> >> (that is, eliminating y). >> >> This correctly returns {{}}. Ordinarily when radicals are present >> Solve understands that parasite solutions may be found, and makes >> an attempt to check them. But in this case what can it check, when >> every possible value is a viable solution? So {{}} is the returned >> result. >> >> Generally speaking, {{}} will be returned if there is some >> continuum on which all values are viable results. This is because >> a continuum of solutions implies (e.g. by the identity theorem of >> complex analysis) that, after polynomialization, all values are >> solutions. Even worse, there can be cases where all solutions will >> be parasites but algebraicization caused a continuum of apparent >> solutions to appear, etc. etc. >> >> >> Daniel Lichtblau >> Wolfram Research > > > Would it not be better, however, to be less ambitious here and also > return the usual message about the presence of "non-algebraic > functions"? Perhaps, this ought to be done as soon as the presence > of Abs in the equations is detected. At least this might avoid > postings like the one that started this thread. > > Andrzej Kozlowski Now that I have looked at this a little more closely, the situation looks even more confusing ;-) I guess, in the strictest sense, the correct behaviour of Solve in this situation is what we get when we evaluate: Solve[Sqrt[Im[x]^2 + Re[x]^2] == x, x] The difference between this and what Mathematica actually does in the example that started this thread can be expressed in the following way: when Solve sees Abs[x] it replaces it by ComplexExpand[Abs [x],TargetFunctions->{Re,Im}] while strictly speaking it should use ComplexExpand[Abs[x],{x},TargetFunctions->{Re,Im}]. But compare the above with the following example: Solve[Abs[x] == 1, x] Solve::"Inverse functions are being used by Solve so some solutions may not be found; use Reduce for complete solution information. {{x -> -1}, {x -> 1}} Note that this time we get the "inverse functions" message, which is also somewhat confusing. What "inverse functions"? Presumably the "inverse functions" of x->Abs[x] referred to are the functions x->x and x->-x. If the same method were to be used in the original problem the answer should be some kind of "union" of the following two. Solve[x == x, x] {{}} Solve[x == -x, x] {{x -> 0}} It is not clear to me whether that ought to be {{}} or {{x->0}} or what. Moreover, note that Solve[Sqrt[x^2] == 1, x] {{x -> -1}, {x -> 1}} with no message, so this time Abs[x] is clearly not replaced by Sqrt [x]^2 (ComplexExpand[Abs[x],TargetFunctions->{Re,Im}]). Of course Daniel has already acknowledged replacing Abs[x] by Sqrt[x] ^2 is a "mistake of the real line". Presumably the original justification for this is based on Mathematica's basic principle: it is better to return a partially correct answer than no answer at all. Since considering Abs[x] in the complex plane would practically guarantee that no useful answer will be returned, one might as well make the tacit assumption that x is real and try to see if an answer can be given. However, it seems to me that this approach, which was very natural in early versions of Mathematica, is less appropriate now, when computing power is much greater and Reduce can often return full and rigorous answers to such problems. I would argue that the right approach for Solve nowadays is this: when given a polynomial equation (or one that is equivalent to a polynomial equation) try to give a complete solution (with the provision of non-generic solutions and "equations satisifed for all values of the variables, like Solve [x==x,x]). When given an equation an algebraic involving radicals and parameters a message about possible parasite solutions should be issued. With any equation involving non-algebric functions including Abs is given a message about the presence of non-algebriac functions and a disclaimer concerning the possibility of additional solutions as well as the possibility of "parasite" solutions should be issued and, if possible, some kind of solution should be returned, on the principle "better this than nothing" (with the user having the full knowledge that this is what he is getting). However, using this principle the solution {{x->0}} would appear to me to be better than the solution {{}}. Admittedly, the latter is not quite "nothing" ( compare it with Solve[x==x,x]) but it is certainly nothing in particular. And it seems to me that "something" is a little better than "nothing in particular". Andrzej Kozlowski

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Re: Re: Re: solve and Abs***From:*János <janos.lobb@yale.edu>

**Re: Color names and the 10 elementary colors?**

**Re: Re: Re: solve and Abs**

**Re: Re: Re: solve and Abs**

**Re: Re: Re: Re: solve and Abs**