       Re: ForAll testing equality, and Limit evaluating wrong

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg104595] Re: [mg104512] ForAll testing equality, and Limit evaluating wrong
• From: Rui Rojo <rui.rojo at gmail.com>
• Date: Wed, 4 Nov 2009 01:39:26 -0500 (EST)
• References: <200911030750.CAA00981@smc.vnet.net>

```Thanks a lot ;)

On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 9:24 PM, DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com> wrote:

> If you don't want the Limit computed (and done away with) when f is
> symbolic, define
>
> Clear[xTransf]
> xTransf[f_?NumericQ] :=
>
> Limit[(E^(-24 I \[Pi] r) (-Cos[12 \[Pi] r] + Cos[24 r \[Pi]] +
>  12 \[Pi] r Sin[24 \[Pi] r]))/(2 \[Pi]^2 r^2), r -> f]
>
> This means, however, that every single time you compute xTransf[aNumber],
> the Limit is computed from scratch.
>
> Here's a timing for 201 calculations:
>
> {First@#, Length@Last@#} &@Timing@Table[xTransf@f, {f, 0, 10, .05}]
>
> {7.98758, 201}
>
> Here's a more efficient definition, with timing for the same evaluated
> points:
>
> Clear[xTransf]
> xTransf[0 | 0.] =
>
>  Limit[(E^(-24 I \[Pi] r) (-Cos[12 \[Pi] r] + Cos[24 r \[Pi]] +
>        12 \[Pi] r Sin[24 \[Pi] r]))/(2 \[Pi]^2 r^2), r -> 0];
>
> xTransf[f_] =
>  Limit[(E^(-24 I \[Pi] r) (-Cos[12 \[Pi] r] + Cos[24 r \[Pi]] +
>        12 \[Pi] r Sin[24 \[Pi] r]))/(2 \[Pi]^2 r^2), r -> f];
> {First@#, Length@Last@#} &@Timing@Table[xTransf@f, {f, 0, 10, .05}]
>
> {0.003726, 201}
>
> That's a big difference in speed:
>
> 7.98758/.003726
>
> 2143.74
>
> Bobby
>
>
> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 18:01:46 -0600, Rui Rojo <rui.rojo at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  I see why it happens, but I don't get why Mathematica removes the "Limit"
>> from xTransf when it evaluates it at "f"... Or how I can avoid it, so I
>> don't get those kinds of mistakes
>>
>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 8:33 PM, DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>  r[Pi] occurs because of copy/paste from e-mail to a notebook, when the
>>> line
>>>
>>>
>>> xTransf[f]:=Limit[(E^(-24 I r \[Pi]) (-Cos[12 r \[Pi]] + Cos[24 r \
>>> [Pi]] +
>>>  12 r \[Pi] Sin[24 r \[Pi]]))/(2 r^2 \[Pi]^2), r->f]
>>>
>>> So that's an e-mail artifact.
>>>
>>> You defined xTransf this way:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Clear[xTransf, xTransf2]
>>> xTransf2[f_] := 36 Sinc[6 Pi f]^2;
>>> xTransf[f_] :=
>>>  Limit[(E^(-24 I \[Pi] r) (-Cos[12 \[Pi] r] + Cos[24 r \[Pi]] +
>>>      12 \[Pi] r Sin[24 \[Pi] r]))/(2 \[Pi]^2 r^2), r -> f]
>>>
>>> and noticed that this evaluates fine:
>>>
>>> xTransf
>>>
>>> 36
>>>
>>> but this does not (error messages omitted):
>>>
>>> xTransf[f] /. f -> 0
>>>
>>> Indeterminate
>>>
>>> It's easy to see why the error occurs, since this is undefined at f=0:
>>>
>>> xTransf[f]
>>>
>>>
>>> (E^(-24 I f \[Pi]) (-Cos[12 f \[Pi]] + Cos[24 f \[Pi]] +
>>>  12 f \[Pi] Sin[24 f \[Pi]]))/(2 f^2 \[Pi]^2)
>>>
>>> (We can't divide by zero.)
>>>
>>> But the limit as f->0 exists, so xTransf can be calculated, and 36 is
>>> the result.
>>>
>>> Bobby
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 16:33:07 -0600, Rui Rojo <rui.rojo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>  Yeah, the first xTransf[f] slipped when copying by hand, and the second
>>>
>>>> thing I don't see it.  The FullSimplify does what I wanted like you
>>>> said.
>>>> Thanks :)
>>>>
>>>> Any comments on the Limit issue?
>>>> Rui Rojo
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, Nov 3, 2009 at 6:34 PM, DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>  As is, you posted a scramble for two reasons:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> underscore).
>>>>>
>>>>> 2) The right hand side includes r[Pi] in the second Cos argument,
>>>>> indicating that r is a function. In that case, what does it mean for r
>>>>> to
>>>>> approach f in the Limit?
>>>>>
>>>>> If I rewrite to eliminate those problems, Simplify doesn't get the
>>>>> result
>>>>> you want, but FullSimplify does:
>>>>>
>>>>> Clear[xTransf, xTransf2]
>>>>> xTransf2[f_] := 36 Sinc[6 Pi f]^2;
>>>>> xTransf[f_] =
>>>>>  Limit[(E^(-24 I \[Pi] r) (-Cos[12 \[Pi] r] + Cos[24 r \[Pi]] +
>>>>>    12 \[Pi] r Sin[24 \[Pi] r]))/(2 \[Pi]^2 r^2), r -> f];
>>>>> diff[i_] = xTransf2[i/24] - xTransf[i/24];
>>>>> one = Simplify[diff@i, {i > 0, i \[Element] Integers}]
>>>>>
>>>>> 36 ((8 (-1 + (-1)^i Cos[(i \[Pi])/2]))/(i^2 \[Pi]^2) +
>>>>>  Sinc[(i \[Pi])/4]^2)
>>>>>
>>>>> FullSimplify[diff@i, {i > 0, i \[Element] Integers}]
>>>>>
>>>>> 0
>>>>>
>>>>> One way to work that out almost by hand is:
>>>>>
>>>>> two = Expand[(i^2 Pi^2)/(8*36) one /. Sinc[any_] :> Sin@any/any]
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 + (-1)^i Cos[(i \[Pi])/2] + 2 Sin[(i \[Pi])/4]^2
>>>>>
>>>>> (to eliminate Sinc)
>>>>>
>>>>> doubleAngle = ReplaceAll[#, Cos[x_] :> Cos[x/2]^2 - Sin[x/2]^2] &;
>>>>> three = MapAt[doubleAngle, two, 2] // Expand
>>>>>
>>>>> -1 + (-1)^i Cos[(i \[Pi])/4]^2 +
>>>>>  2 Sin[(i \[Pi])/4]^2 - (-1)^i Sin[(i \[Pi])/4]^2
>>>>>
>>>>> (to have all the Sin and Cos terms squared)
>>>>>
>>>>> four = three /. Cos[any_]^2 :> 1 - Sin[any]^2 // Expand // Factor
>>>>>
>>>>> -(-1 + (-1)^i) (-1 + 2 Sin[(i \[Pi])/4]^2)
>>>>>
>>>>> Separate into factors:
>>>>>
>>>>> {minus, five, six} = List @@ four
>>>>>
>>>>> {-1, -1 + (-1)^i, -1 + 2 Sin[(i \[Pi])/4]^2}
>>>>>
>>>>> "five" is zero when i is even:
>>>>>
>>>>> Reduce[five == 0]
>>>>>
>>>>> (-1)^i == 1
>>>>>
>>>>> "six" is zero when i is odd:
>>>>>
>>>>> Reduce[six == 0]
>>>>>
>>>>> Sin[(i \[Pi])/4] == -(1/Sqrt) || Sin[(i \[Pi])/4] == 1/Sqrt
>>>>>
>>>>> So the product is zero for all i. (NON-ZERO i, that is, since we
>>>>> assumed
>>>>> Sinc was defined.)
>>>>>
>>>>> Bobby
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 03 Nov 2009 01:50:55 -0600, Rui <rui.rojo at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>  I want to prove that xTransf2[f]==xTransf[f] for all f multiple of
>>>>>
>>>>>  1/24.
>>>>>> xTransf2[f_]:=36 Sinc[6 Pi f]^2 and
>>>>>> xTransf[f]:=Limit[(E^(-24 I r \[Pi]) (-Cos[12 r \[Pi]] + Cos[24 r \
>>>>>> [Pi]] +
>>>>>>  12 r \[Pi] Sin[24 r \[Pi]]))/(2 r^2 \[Pi]^2), r->f]
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If I do
>>>>>> ForAll[f \[Element] Integers, YTransf[f/24] == YTransf2[f/24]]
>>>>>> I don't get a result... I can't find a way.
>>>>>> In fact, I get
>>>>>> (144 E^(-I f \[Pi]) (-2 Cos[(f \[Pi])/2] + 2 Cos[f \[Pi]] +
>>>>>>  f \[Pi] Sin[f \[Pi]]))/(f^2 \[Pi]^2) == 36 Sinc[(f \[Pi])/4]^2
>>>>>>
>>>>>> They are clrealy equal, at least on the 48 points closest to 0,
>>>>>> because if I do
>>>>>> And @@ ((xTransf[1/24 #] == xTransf2[1/24 #]) & /@ Range[-24, 24])
>>>>>> I get "True"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Any pretty way to be certain?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I've also realised that Mathematica has evaluated Limits with
>>>>>> variables, making the "Limit" disappear when for some values of the
>>>>>> variables I could get an indetermined result with the evaluated
>>>>>> version. For example, the Limit in xTransf
>>>>>> xTransf[f]
>>>>>> I get
>>>>>> (E^(-24 I f \[Pi]) (-Cos[12 f \[Pi]] + Cos[24 f \[Pi]] +
>>>>>>  12 f \[Pi] Sin[24 f \[Pi]]))/(2 f^2 \[Pi]^2)
>>>>>> without the Limit.
>>>>>> So, if I do
>>>>>> xTransf[f]/.f->0
>>>>>> I get errors but if I do xTransf I get 36
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> Hope you can help :)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>  --
>>>>> DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>> --
>>> DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
>>>
>>>
>
> --
> DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
>

```

• Prev by Date: Re: ForAll testing equality, and Limit evaluating wrong
• Next by Date: easy way to represent polynomials (v 7.0)
• Previous by thread: Re: ForAll testing equality, and Limit evaluating wrong
• Next by thread: Re: ForAll testing equality, and Limit evaluating wrong