I try to do a simple division of polynomials in two variables using sage.
Unfortunately, I get an unexpected result, as is illustrated in the code below.
I tried several different ways to instantiate the ring and its variables, but
the result stays the same. Using the %-operator to get a rest of a division yields the same results. Any ideas?
R, (x, y) = PolynomialRing(RationalField(), 2, 'xy').objgens()
t = x^2*y^2 + x^2*y - y + 1
f1 = x*y^2 + x
f2 = x*y - y^3
(q, r) = t.quo_rem(f1)
print "quotient:", q, "reminder:", r
assert q == x and r == x^2*y-x^2-y+1
(q, r) = r.quo_rem(f2) # error, expected q = x, r = -x^2+x*y^3-y+1
print "quotient:", q, "reminder:", r
assert q == x and r == -x^2+x*y^3-y+1
Output:
quotient: x reminder: x^2*y - x^2 - y + 1
quotient: 0 reminder: x^2*y - x^2 - y + 1
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
AssertionError Traceback (most recent call last)
<ipython-input-8-861e8a9d1112> in <module>()
10 (q, r) = r.quo_rem(f2) # error, expected q = x, r = -x^2+x*y^3-y+1
11 print "quotient:", q, "reminder:", r
---> 12 assert q == x and r == -x**Integer(2)+x*y**Integer(3)-y+Integer(1)
AssertionError:
Division of multivariate polynomials: term orders
The result of division of multivariable polynomials depends on the chosen order of monomials, as is explained in Wikipedia. For the present, it suffices to say that the quotient from dividing P by Q is nonzero if and only if P contains a monomial that is divisible by the leading monomial of Q with respect to the chosen order.
By default, polynomial rings in Sage use the degree-reverse lexicographic order (degrevlex for short), in which monomials are first sorted by total degree, and then lexicographically within each degree. You can check this by using R.term_order(). And here is the list of term orders.
In the degrevlex order, y^3 precedes x*y because it has higher total degree. And since x^2*y-x^2-y+1 does not have a monomial divisible by y^3, you get zero quotient.
Buggy quo_rem
Your expected results are consistent with the lexicographic (lex) order of monomials. So, it would seem that the fix is to prescribe lexicographic term order when constructing R:
R.<x,y> = PolynomialRing(QQ, 2, 'xy', order='lex')
Unfortunately, quo_rem ignores the term order of R and still uses degrevlex. This appears to be a bug, either in the way Sage communicates with Singular, or in Singular itself (the Quotient command is deprecated).
Workaround
Meanwhile, there is a workaround: use the reduce command instead of quo_rem, as it respects the term order of R. For example:
R.<x,y> = PolynomialRing(QQ, 2, 'xy', order='lex')
a = x^2*y-x^2-y+1
f2 = x*y-y^3
r = a.reduce(Ideal([f2]))
q = (a-r)/f2
This returns r = -x^2 + x*y^3 - y + 1 and q = x.
Related
Edit: more details
Hello I found this problem through one of my teachers but I still don't understand how to approach to it, and I would like to know if anyone had any ideas for it:
Create a program capable of generating systems of equations (randomly) that contain between 2 and 8 variables. The program will ask the user for a number of variables in the system of equations using the input function. The range of the coefficients must be between [-10,10], however, no coefficient should be 0. Both the coefficients and the solutions must be integers.
The goal is to print the system and show the solution to the variables (x,y,z,...). NumPy is allowed.
As far as I understand it should work this way:
Enter the number of variables: 2
x + y = 7
4x - y =3
x = 2
y = 5
I'm still learning arrays in python, but do they work the same as in matlab?
Thank you in advance :)!
For k variables, the lhs of the equations will be k number of unknowns and a kxk matrix for the coefficients. The dot product of those two should give you the rhs. Then it's a simple case of printing that however you want.
import numpy as np
def generate_linear_equations(k):
coeffs = [*range(-10, 0), *range(1, 11)]
rng = np.random.default_rng()
return rng.choice(coeffs, size=(k, k)), rng.integers(-10, 11, k)
k = int(input('Enter the number of variables: '))
if not 2 <= k <= 8:
raise ValueError('The number of variables must be between 2 and 8.')
coeffs, variables = generate_linear_equations(k)
solution = coeffs.dot(variables)
symbols = 'abcdefgh'[:k]
for row, sol in zip(coeffs, solution):
lhs = ' '.join(f'{r:+}{s}' for r, s in zip(row, symbols)).lstrip('+')
print(f'{lhs} = {sol}')
print()
for s, v in zip(symbols, variables):
print(f'{s} = {v}')
Which for example can give
Enter the number of variables: 3
8a +6b -4c = -108
9a -9b -4c = 3
10a +10b +9c = -197
a = -9
b = -8
c = -3
If you specifically want the formatting of the lhs to have a space between the sign and to not show a coefficient if it has a value of 1, then you need something more complex. Substitute lhs for the following:
def sign(n):
return '+' if n > 0 else '-'
lhs = ' '.join(f'{sign(r)} {abs(r)}{s}' if r not in (-1, 1) else f'{sign(r)} {s}' for r, s in zip(row, symbols))
lhs = lhs[2:] if lhs.startswith('+') else f'-{lhs[2:]}'
I did this by randomly generating the left hand side and the solution within your constraints, then plugging the solutions into the equations to generate the right hand side. Feel free to ask for clarification about any part of the code.
import numpy as np
num_variables = int(input('Number of variables:'))
valid_integers = np.asarray([x for x in range(-10,11) if x != 0])
lhs = np.random.choice(valid_integers, lhs_shape)
solution = np.random.randint(-10, 11, num_variables)
rhs = lhs.dot(solution)
for i in range(num_variables):
for j in range(num_variables):
symbol = '=' if j == num_variables-1 else '+'
print(f'{lhs[i, j]:3d}*x{j+1} {symbol} ', end='')
print(rhs[i])
for i in range(num_variables):
print(f'x{i+1} = {solution[i]}'
Example output:
Number of variables:2
2*x1 + -7*x2 = -84
-4*x1 + 1*x2 = 38
x1 = -7
x2 = 10
I'm new to sympy and I'm trying to use it to get the values of higher order Greeks of options (basically higher order derivatives). My goal is to do a Taylor series expansion. The function in question is the first derivative.
f(x) = N(d1)
N(d1) is the P(X <= d1) of a standard normal distribution. d1 in turn is another function of x (x in this case is the price of the stock to anybody who's interested).
d1 = (np.log(x/100) + (0.01 + 0.5*0.11**2)*0.5)/(0.11*np.sqrt(0.5))
As you can see, d1 is a function of only x. This is what I have tried so far.
import sympy as sp
from math import pi
from sympy.stats import Normal,P
x = sp.symbols('x')
u = (sp.log(x/100) + (0.01 + 0.5*0.11**2)*0.5)/(0.11*np.sqrt(0.5))
N = Normal('N',0,1)
f = sp.simplify(P(N <= u))
print(f.evalf(subs={x:100})) # This should be 0.5155
f1 = sp.simplify(sp.diff(f,x))
f1.evalf(subs={x:100}) # This should also return a float value
The last line of code however returns an expression, not a float value as I expected like in the case with f. I feel like I'm making a very simple mistake but I can't find out why. I'd appreciate any help.
Thanks.
If you define x with positive=True (which is implied by the log in the definition of u assuming u is real which is implied by the definition of f) it looks like you get almost the expected result (also using f1.subs({x:100}) in the version without the positive x assumption shows the trouble is with unevaluated polar_lift(0) terms):
import sympy as sp
from sympy.stats import Normal, P
x = sp.symbols('x', positive=True)
u = (sp.log(x/100) + (0.01 + 0.5*0.11**2)*0.5)/(0.11*sp.sqrt(0.5)) # changed np to sp
N = Normal('N',0,1)
f = sp.simplify(P(N <= u))
print(f.evalf(subs={x:100})) # 0.541087287864516
f1 = sp.simplify(sp.diff(f,x))
print(f1.evalf(subs={x:100})) # 0.0510177033783834
I am trying to complete the following exercise:
https://www.codewars.com/kata/whats-a-perfect-power-anyway/train/python
I tried multiple variations, but my code breaks down when big numbers are involved (I tried multiple variations with solutions involving log and power functions):
Exercise:
Your task is to check wheter a given integer is a perfect power. If it is a perfect power, return a pair m and k with m^k = n as a proof. Otherwise return Nothing, Nil, null, None or your language's equivalent.
Note: For a perfect power, there might be several pairs. For example 81 = 3^4 = 9^2, so (3,4) and (9,2) are valid solutions. However, the tests take care of this, so if a number is a perfect power, return any pair that proves it.
The exercise uses Python 3.4.3
My code:
import math
def isPP(n):
for i in range(2 +n%2,n,2):
a = math.log(n,i)
if int(a) == round(a, 1):
if pow(i, int(a)) == n:
return [i, int(a)]
return None
Question:
How is it possible that I keep getting incorrect answers for bigger numbers? I read that in Python 3, all ints are treated as "long" from Python 2, i.e. they can be very large and still represented accurately. Thus, since i and int(a) are both ints, shouldn't the pow(i, int(a)) == n be assessed correctly? I'm actually baffled.
(edit note: also added integer nth root bellow)
you are in the right track with logarithm but you are doing the math wrong, also you are skipping number you should not and only testing all the even number or all the odd number without considering that a number can be even with a odd power or vice-versa
check this
>>> math.log(170**3,3)
14.02441559235585
>>>
not even close, the correct method is described here Nth root
which is:
let x be the number to calculate the Nth root, n said root and r the result, then we get
rn = x
take the log in any base from both sides, and solve for r
logb( rn ) = logb( x )
n * logb( r ) = logb( x )
logb( r ) = logb( x ) / n
blogb( r ) = blogb( x ) / n
r = blogb( x ) / n
so for instance with log in base 10 we get
>>> pow(10, math.log10(170**3)/3 )
169.9999999999999
>>>
that is much more closer, and with just rounding it we get the answer
>>> round(169.9999999999999)
170
>>>
therefore the function should be something like this
import math
def isPP(x):
for n in range(2, 1+round(math.log2(x)) ):
root = pow( 10, math.log10(x)/n )
result = round(root)
if result**n == x:
return result,n
the upper limit in range is to avoid testing numbers that will certainly fail
test
>>> isPP(170**3)
(170, 3)
>>> isPP(6434856)
(186, 3)
>>> isPP(9**2)
(9, 2)
>>> isPP(23**8)
(279841, 2)
>>> isPP(279841)
(529, 2)
>>> isPP(529)
(23, 2)
>>>
EDIT
or as Tin Peters point out you can use pow(x,1./n) as the nth root of a number is also expressed as x1/n
for example
>>> pow(170**3, 1./3)
169.99999999999994
>>> round(_)
170
>>>
but keep in mind that that will fail for extremely large numbers like for example
>>> pow(8191**107,1./107)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#90>", line 1, in <module>
pow(8191**107,1./107)
OverflowError: int too large to convert to float
>>>
while the logarithmic approach will success
>>> pow(10, math.log10(8191**107)/107)
8190.999999999999
>>>
the reason is that 8191107 is simple too big, it have 419 digits which is greater that the maximum float representable, but reducing it with a log produce a more reasonable number
EDIT 2
now if you want to work with numbers ridiculously big, or just plain don't want to use floating point arithmetic altogether and use only integer arithmetic, then the best course of action is to use the method of Newton, that the helpful link provided by Tin Peters for the particular case for cube root, show us the way to do it in general alongside the wikipedia article
def inthroot(A,n):
if A<0:
if n%2 == 0:
raise ValueError
return - inthroot(-A,n)
if A==0:
return 0
n1 = n-1
if A.bit_length() < 1024: # float(n) safe from overflow
xk = int( round( pow(A,1/n) ) )
xk = ( n1*xk + A//pow(xk,n1) )//n # Ensure xk >= floor(nthroot(A)).
else:
xk = 1 << -(-A.bit_length()//n) # power of 2 closer but greater than the nth root of A
while True:
sig = A // pow(xk,n1)
if xk <= sig:
return xk
xk = ( n1*xk + sig )//n
check the explanation by Mark Dickinson to understand the working of the algorithm for the case of cube root, which is basically the same for this
now lets compare this with the other one
>>> def nthroot(x,n):
return pow(10, math.log10(x)/n )
>>> n = 2**(2**12) + 1 # a ridiculously big number
>>> r = nthroot(n**2,2)
Traceback (most recent call last):
File "<pyshell#48>", line 1, in <module>
nthroot(n**2,2)
File "<pyshell#47>", line 2, in nthroot
return pow(10, math.log10(x)/n )
OverflowError: (34, 'Result too large')
>>> r = inthroot(n**2,2)
>>> r == n
True
>>>
then the function is now
import math
def isPPv2(x):
for n in range(2,1+round(math.log2(x))):
root = inthroot(x,n)
if root**n == x:
return root,n
test
>>> n = 2**(2**12) + 1 # a ridiculously big number
>>> r,p = isPPv2(n**23)
>>> p
23
>>> r == n
True
>>> isPPv2(170**3)
(170, 3)
>>> isPPv2(8191**107)
(8191, 107)
>>> isPPv2(6434856)
(186, 3)
>>>
now lets check isPP vs isPPv2
>>> x = (1 << 53) + 1
>>> x
9007199254740993
>>> isPP(x**2)
>>> isPPv2(x**2)
(9007199254740993, 2)
>>>
clearly, avoiding floating point is the best choice
I have a function named f = 0.5/(z-3). I would like to know what would the coefficients p and q be if f was written in the following form: q/(1-p*z) but unfortunately sympy match function returns None. Am I doing something wrong? or what is the right way of doing something like this?
Here is the code:
z = symbols('z')
p, q = Wild('p'), Wild('q')
print (0.5/(z-3)).match(q/(1-p*z))
EDIT:
My expected answer is: q=-1/6 and p = 1/3
One way of course is
p, q = symbols('p q')
f = 0.5/(z-3)
print solve(f - q/(1-p*z), p, q,rational=True)
But I don't know how to do that in pattern matching, or if it's capable of doing something like this.
Thanks in Advance =)
If you start by converting to linear form,
1 / (2*z - 6) == q / (1 - p*z)
# multiply both sides
# by (2*z - 6) * (1 - p*z)
1 - p*z == q * (2*z - 6)
then
from sympy import Eq, solve, symbols, Wild
z = symbols("z")
p,q = symbols("p q", cls=Wild)
solve(Eq(1 - p*z, q*(2*z - 6)), (p,q))
gives
{p_: 1/3, q_: -1/6}
as expected.
Edit: I found a slightly different approach:
solve(Eq(f, g)) is equivalent to solve(f - g) (implicitly ==0)
We can reduce f - g like simplify(f - g), but by default it doesn't do anything because the resulting equation is more than 1.7 times longer than the original (default value for ratio argument).
If we specify a higher ratio, like simplify(f - g, ratio=5), we get
>>> simplify(1/(2*z-6) - q/(1-p*z), ratio=5)
(z*p_ + 2*q_*(z - 3) - 1)/(2*(z - 3)*(z*p_ - 1))
This is now in a form the solver will deal with:
>>> solve(_, (p,q))
{p_: 1/3, q_: -1/6}
SymPy's pattern matcher only does minimal algebraic manipulation to match things. It doesn't match in this case because there is no 1 in the denominator. It would be better to match against a/(b + c*z) and manipulate a, b, and c into the p and q. solve can show you the exact formula:
In [7]: solve(Eq(a/(b + c*z), q/(1 - p*z)), (q, p))
Out[7]:
⎧ -c a⎫
⎨p: ───, q: ─⎬
⎩ b b⎭
Finally, it's always a good idea to use exclude when constructing Wild object, like Wild('a', exclude=[z]). Otherwise you can get unexpected behavior like
In [11]: a, b = Wild('a'), Wild('b')
In [12]: S(2).match(a + b*z)
Out[12]:
⎧ 2⎫
⎨a: 0, b: ─⎬
⎩ z⎭
which is technically correct, but probably not what you want.
I need to calculate the arcsine function of small values that are under the form of mpmath's "mpf" floating-point bignums.
What I call a "small" value is for example e/4/(10**7) = 0.000000067957045711476130884...
Here is a result of a test on my machine with mpmath's built-in asin function:
import gmpy2
from mpmath import *
from time import time
mp.dps = 10**6
val=e/4/(10**7)
print "ready"
start=time()
temp=asin(val)
print "mpmath asin: "+str(time()-start)+" seconds"
>>> 155.108999968 seconds
This is a particular case: I work with somewhat small numbers, so I'm asking myself if there is a way to calculate it in python that actually beats mpmath for this particular case (= for small values).
Taylor series are actually a good choice here because they converge very fast for small arguments. But I still need to accelerate the calculations further somehow.
Actually there are some problems:
1) Binary splitting is ineffective here because it shines only when you can write the argument as a small fraction. A full-precision float is given here.
2) arcsin is a non-alternating series, thus Van Wijngaarden or sumalt transformations are ineffective too (unless there is a way I'm not aware of to generalize them to non-alternating series).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_Wijngaarden_transformation
The only acceleration left I can think of is Chebyshev polynomials. Can Chebyshev polynomials be applied on the arcsin function? How to?
Can you use the mpfr type that is included in gmpy2?
>>> import gmpy2
>>> gmpy2.get_context().precision = 3100000
>>> val = gmpy2.exp(1)/4/10**7
>>> from time import time
>>> start=time();r=gmpy2.asin(val);print time()-start
3.36188197136
In addition to supporting the GMP library, gmpy2 also supports the MPFR and MPC multiple-precision libraries.
Disclaimer: I maintain gmpy2.
Actually binary splitting does work very well, if combined with iterated argument reduction to balance the number of terms against the size of the numerators and denominators (this is known as the bit-burst algorithm).
Here is a binary splitting implementation for mpmath based on repeated application of the formula atan(t) = atan(p/2^q) + atan((t*2^q-p) / (2^q+p*t)). This formula was suggested recently by Richard Brent (in fact mpmath's atan already uses a single invocation of this formula at low precision, in order to look up atan(p/2^q) from a cache). If I remember correctly, MPFR also uses the bit-burst algorithm to evaluate atan, but it uses a slightly different formula, which possibly is more efficient (instead of evaluating several different arctangent values, it does analytic continuation using the arctangent differential equation).
from mpmath.libmp import MPZ, bitcount
from mpmath import mp
def bsplit(p, q, a, b):
if b - a == 1:
if a == 0:
P = p
Q = q
else:
P = p * p
Q = q * 2
B = MPZ(1 + 2 * a)
if a % 2 == 1:
B = -B
T = P
return P, Q, B, T
else:
m = a + (b - a) // 2
P1, Q1, B1, T1 = bsplit(p, q, a, m)
P2, Q2, B2, T2 = bsplit(p, q, m, b)
T = ((T1 * B2) << Q2) + T2 * B1 * P1
P = P1 * P2
B = B1 * B2
Q = Q1 + Q2
return P, Q, B, T
def atan_bsplit(p, q, prec):
"""computes atan(p/2^q) as a fixed-point number"""
if p == 0:
return MPZ(0)
# FIXME
nterms = (-prec / (bitcount(p) - q) - 1) * 0.5
nterms = int(nterms) + 1
if nterms < 1:
return MPZ(0)
P, Q, B, T = bsplit(p, q, 0, nterms)
if prec >= Q:
return (T << (prec - Q)) // B
else:
return T // (B << (Q - prec))
def atan_fixed(x, prec):
t = MPZ(x)
s = MPZ(0)
q = 1
while t:
q = min(q, prec)
p = t >> (prec - q)
if p:
s += atan_bsplit(p, q, prec)
u = (t << q) - (p << prec)
v = (MPZ(1) << (q + prec)) + p * t
t = (u << prec) // v
q *= 2
return s
def atan1(x):
prec = mp.prec
man = x.to_fixed(prec)
return mp.mpf((atan_fixed(man, prec), -prec))
def asin1(x):
x = mpf(x)
return atan1(x/sqrt(1-x**2))
With this code, I get:
>>> from mpmath import *
>>> mp.dps = 1000000
>>> val=e/4/(10**7)
>>> from time import time
>>> start = time(); y1 = asin(x); print time() - start
58.8485069275
>>> start = time(); y2 = asin1(x); print time() - start
8.26498985291
>>> nprint(y2 - y1)
-2.31674e-1000000
Warning: atan1 assumes 0 <= x < 1/2, and the determination of the number of terms might not be optimal or correct (fixing these issues is left as an exercise to the reader).
A fast way is to use a pre-calculated look-up table.
But if you look at e.g. a Taylor series for asin;
def asin(x):
rv = (x + 1/3.0*x**3 + 7/30.0*x**5 + 64/315.0*x**7 + 4477/22680.0*x**9 +
28447/138600.0*x**11 + 23029/102960.0*x**13 +
17905882/70945875.0*x**15 + 1158176431/3958416000.0*x**17 +
9149187845813/26398676304000.0*x**19)
return rv
You'll see that for small values of x, asin(x) ≈ x.
In [19]: asin(1e-7)
Out[19]: 1.0000000000000033e-07
In [20]: asin(1e-9)
Out[20]: 1e-09
In [21]: asin(1e-11)
Out[21]: 1e-11
In [22]: asin(1e-12)
Out[22]: 1e-12
E.g. for the value us used:
In [23]: asin(0.000000067957045711476130884)
Out[23]: 6.795704571147624e-08
In [24]: asin(0.000000067957045711476130884)/0.000000067957045711476130884
Out[24]: 1.0000000000000016
Of course it depends on whether this difference is relevant to you.