       Re: Bug in Mathematica 7.0.1.0 ?

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg109374] Re: Bug in Mathematica 7.0.1.0 ?
• From: Murray Eisenberg <murray at math.umass.edu>
• Date: Fri, 23 Apr 2010 03:51:45 -0400 (EDT)

```"Should" is a very demanding word!  What you might like Mathematica to
do and what Mathematica actually does according to its consistent set of
rules and language design may be two quite different things.

On 4/22/2010 3:29 AM, slawek wrote:
> U=BFytkownik "David Bailey"<dave at removedbailey.co.uk>  napisa=B3 w wiadomo=B6ci
> grup dyskusyjnych:hqmoku\$4d7\$1 at smc.vnet.net...
>> 1)  The answer from 7.0.1 is not wrong - just not in the form you desired.
>
>
> It is wrong because Mathematica should present results in the simplest form
> and the Conjugate[a] is not the simplest form.
>
>> 2)  Your code assumed that Conjugate called Im internally - this is the
>> sort of assumption that may vary from one version to the next.
>
> Mathematica should check all data on a symbol: is it real? is it complex? is
> it a matrix? is it a constant? The Im[variable]^=0 was a well known practice
> to define that a variable is real. Nevertheless you are right: Mathematica
> degrade from older to 6.0 and 7.0 versions - no more RealsOnly, no ReIm, no
> working Conjugate. Some changes was forced by poor implementation - e.g.
> RealsOnly gives horrible wrong results in some cases.
>
>> FullSimplify[Conjugate[a b], Im[a] == 0]
>
> %/.Conjugate[a b]->a Conjugate[b] is far more simple anyway.
>
>> Conjugate[b]) is actually no simpler than Conjugate[a b]
>
> Your point of view. I have some nasty integrals, and Conjugate[a b] glue to
> a^4 to give a^5 Integrate[Conjugate[b]...., ...]. I think that a^5 as a
> factor is a little simpler than Conjugate[a b] inside Integrate.
>
>> In:= complexity[expr_] := LeafCount[expr] +
>>             10*Count[expr, Conjugate[x_ y_], {0, Infinity}];
>>
>> FullSimplify[Conjugate[a b], Im[a] == 0,
>>   ComplexityFunction ->  complexity]
>
> A nice feature. Actually I really need to disable Integrate[], because
> integrals are too complicated for Mathematica (and for me too), but the some
> simplifications of the kernels of (multiple) integrals are ok. The complete
> "notebook evaluation" took about an hour. Well, I would substitute:
> %//.Integrate->dummyIntegration.
>
>> Note that although that looks like a lot of work, you can wrap the
>> process up in a function that you define at startup, or in a package,
>> and then use as required.
>
> The whole notebook (yes, it is about the plasma physics and so on, Very
> Boring Things) have got about 150 input entries. Some are like this:
>
> diff[f_, m_] :=
>   Module[{i},
>    D[f[\[Tau]], \[Tau]] ->
>       D[InterpolatingPolynomial[
>         Table[{i h, f[\[Tau] + i h]}, {i, -m, 0}], x], x] /. x ->  0 //
>     FullSimplify]
>
> discretize2m[eq_, m_] := Solve[eq //.
>          {diff[Subscript[A, 1], m], diff[Subscript[A, 2], m],
>           HoldPattern[Integrate[f_, it_]] ->   \[ScriptCapitalI][f,
>             it/h + 1],
>           \[Tau] ->   (j - 1) h, \[Tau]a  ->   (k -
>               1)  h, \[Tau]b ->  (l - 1)  h,
>           Subscript[A, \[Eta]_][x_] ->  Subscript[Z, \[Eta]][x/h]} /.
>         Subscript[Z, \[Eta]_][j_] ->  Subscript[Z, \[Eta]][j + 1] //
>        Simplify, {Subscript[Z, 1][j],
>        Subscript[Z, 2][j]}] /. \[ScriptCapitalI][h^n_ f_, lst_] ->
>       h^n \[ScriptCapitalI][f, lst] // Flatten // FullSimplify
>
> The problematic was a one single line. Conjugate[a b]->a Conjugate[b] was
> sufficient to fix this problem.
>
> But I lost hours to debug .ma ported from 6.0 to 7.0.1.0 .
>
> BTW, this particular notebook generate an crude Fortran code which solves
> some integro-delayed-difference-equations.
>
> slawek
>
>
> slawek
>
>
>

--
Murray Eisenberg                     murray at math.umass.edu
Mathematics & Statistics Dept.
Lederle Graduate Research Tower      phone 413 549-1020 (H)
University of Massachusetts                413 545-2859 (W)
710 North Pleasant Street            fax   413 545-1801
Amherst, MA 01003-9305

```

• Prev by Date: Re: Dynamic evaluation of layered networks
• Next by Date: Function to detect presence of a variable in expression
• Previous by thread: Re: Bug in Mathematica 7.0.1.0 ?
• Next by thread: formula indexing