Re: Compact formulation of array of constraints

• To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
• Subject: [mg132221] Re: Compact formulation of array of constraints
• From: Bob Hanlon <hanlonr357 at gmail.com>
• Date: Mon, 20 Jan 2014 03:59:24 -0500 (EST)
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@mail-archive0.wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: l-mathgroup@wolfram.com
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-outx@smc.vnet.net
• Delivered-to: mathgroup-newsendx@smc.vnet.net
• References: <laqs5d\$1u7\$1@smc.vnet.net>

```With "patterns":

expr = Sqrt[x[2]^2] + Sqrt[x[3]^2];

x[2] + x[3]

Assuming[Cases[Variables[expr], x[n_] -> (x[n] > 0)], Simplify[expr]]

x[2] + x[3]

Bob Hanlon

On Sun, Jan 19, 2014 at 2:55 AM, Yi Wang <tririverwangyi at gmail.com> wrote:

> For this example, yo can do
>
> Apply[And, (x[#] >= 0) & /@ Range[5]]
>
> For example,
>
> Assuming[(x[#] >= 0) & /@ Range[5], Simplify[Sqrt[x[2]^2]]]
>
> On the other hand, AFAIK patterns do not work in this situation.
>
> > Dear All,
> >
> >
> >
> > How can one formulate the set of constraints
> >
> >
> >
> > x[1] >= 0, x[1] >= 0, x[2] >= 0, x[3] >= 0, x[4] >= 0, x[5] >= 0
> >
> >
> >
> > by using a compact form?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > Paul
>
>

```

• Prev by Date: How to show 1+2+3+ ... = -1/12 using Mathematica's symbols?
• Next by Date: Why does _+_==2_ (or, why is HoldPattern required for sensible matching)?
• Previous by thread: Re: Compact formulation of array of constraints
• Next by thread: Number Interpretation