MathGroup Archive 2009

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

Search the Archive

Re: Multi-variable first-order perturbation analysis?

  • To: mathgroup at
  • Subject: [mg104572] Re: Multi-variable first-order perturbation analysis?
  • From: dh <dh at>
  • Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:34:56 -0500 (EST)
  • References: <hcl3i9$blv$>


what you are looking for is called the Jacobian and may be obtained by "D":

funs = {f1[x1, x2], f2[x1, x2]};

D[funs, {{x1, x2}}] /. {x1 -> x10, x2 -> x20}


AES wrote:

> I have a half dozen functions f1, f2, ?, each of which depends on some 

> or all of half a dozen variables  x1, x2, ?, all of these functions 

> pretty vanilla in character.  


> Objective is to obtain the same number of first-order perturbation 

> expansions  df1, df2, ?, where  df1 means all the relevant derivatives


>    (df1/dx1) * dx1  +  (df2/dx2) * dx2 + . . . 


> evaluated at initial values  x1=x10, x2=x20, ? and so on -- all of this 

> totally symbolic in character, and with *no* cross-products dx1 dx2 or 

> similar.


> I know I can code this various ways -- but what's the "cleanest" way to 

> accomplish this?


> [Notes:  The results for df1, df2, ? don't have to be neatly readable, 

> e.g., the terms multiplying  dx1  for a given  dfi  don't all have to be 

> neatly collected inside a single set of brackets; the resulting 

> expressions just have to be correct.  And, by "cleanest" I don't 

> necessarily mean the tersest, most arcane way of coding this.]


  • Prev by Date: Re: Cholesky Decomposition
  • Next by Date: Re: Conventional way of doing "struct"-like things?
  • Previous by thread: Multi-variable first-order perturbation analysis?
  • Next by thread: Re: Multi-variable first-order perturbation analysis?