Let 𝐾=ℚ(√2) and 𝐿=𝐾(𝜔) where 𝑤^2+𝑤+1=0 is one of the cubic roots of unity. Let a be a primitive element of L, O_K the ring of algebraic integers. How do I then compute quotients like O_K/Z[a]? I tried:
K.<sqrt2> = NumberField(x^2-2)
L.<w> = K.extension(x^2+x+1)
a = L.primitive_element()
print L.ring_of_integers().quotient(ZZ[a])
However I always get errors like: "unable to convert Relative Order in Number Field in w0 with defining polynomial x^2 + (2*sqrt2 + 1)*x + sqrt2 + 3 over its base field to Number Field in w with defining polynomial x^2 + x + 1 over its base field".
What is the correct syntax here?
As you have noted, the problem is that we have w and w0 and they don't seem to agree. At this documentation link, we have an interesting example.
sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^3 - 2)
sage: ZZ[a]
Order in Number Field in a0 with defining polynomial x^3 - 2 with a0 = a
This leads me to try
sage: K.<a> = NumberField(x^3 - 2)
sage: Za = ZZ[a]
sage: OK = K.maximal_order()
sage: Za.is_suborder(OK)
False
sage: OK.is_suborder(Za)
False
sage: OK
Maximal Order in Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^3 - 2
sage: Za
Order in Number Field in a0 with defining polynomial x^3 - 2 with a0 = a
sage: OK.number_field()
Number Field in a with defining polynomial x^3 - 2
sage: Za.number_field()
Number Field in a0 with defining polynomial x^3 - 2 with a0 = a
sage: OK.number_field() == Za.number_field()
False
And as we can see, even though a0=a there is apparently no way to directly compare even the underlying number fields. I'm not at all an expert in this part of the code, but I think it deserves a ticket for clarification at the least. I've opened Trac 28706.
In the meantime, if you can find a way to get the order you want using the usual syntax for orders, I'd do that. For the example I made from the documentation, I think Za and OK are the same, but for yours I tried this.
sage: Za.gens()
(1, w0, (-2*sqrt2 - 1)*w0 - sqrt2 - 3, (3*sqrt2 + 6)*w0 + 7*sqrt2 + 7)
sage: O1 = L.order([1,w,(-2*sqrt2 - 1)*w - sqrt2 - 3, (3*sqrt2 + 6)*w + 7*sqrt2 + 7])
sage: O1.is_suborder(OK)
True
which is certainly an improvement. Alas,
sage: OK.quotient(O1)
TypeError: unable to convert Maximal Relative Order in Number Field in w with defining polynomial x^2 + x + 1 over its base field to Number Field in w with defining polynomial x^2 + x + 1 over its base field
so now I am out of my depth. Are such quotients allowed per se? You may have to create an ideal instead to perform this action. Good luck!
Related
I would like to declare the multivariate Ring $R[x_{1},x_{2},x_{3}]/(x_{2}^2-1, x_{1}^{3}x_{3}-2)$. It would be very helpful if there is some method to do this for an arbitrary number of variables.
Thank you so much,
I think AbstractAlgebra.jl is a very good fit for this. You can call it like:
julia> using AbstractAlgebra
julia> ring = ZZ
Integers
julia> S, (x, y, z) = PolynomialRing(ring, ["x", "y", "z"])
(Multivariate Polynomial Ring in x, y, z over Integers, AbstractAlgebra.Generic.MPoly{BigInt}[x, y, z])
julia> p1 = y^2 - 1
xy^2 - 1
julia> p2 = x^3 * z - 2
x^3*z - 2
julia> div(3 * (x^2 + y^3) * p1 + p2, p1)
3*x^2 + 3*y^3
julia> div(3 * (x^2 + y^3) * p1 + p2, p2)
1
And sorry if this doesn't answer your question, my mathematics is not that good. For more information, please visit the documentation.
According to my colleagues this is available in Oscar.jl [1] (which is built on Singular and AbstractAlgebra.jl, mentioned by #aahlback and myself in another answer).
The documentation is in the process of being written right now, so keep an eye on the package to see how this can be done in the very near future.
The implementation is in [2] if you want to take a look.
Edit: there looks to be a relevant example here [3]. Note the ring R in that example is a polynomial ring and does not correspond to your R.
For the coefficient ring (your R) you can currently use any field, Z or Z/nZ, according to the maintainer of the Singular project (which Oscar.jl uses for these computations). It's very, very hard to extend this to other rings.
[1] https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/
[2] https://github.com/oscar-system/Oscar.jl/blob/master/src/Rings/MPolyQuo.jl
[3] https://oscar-system.github.io/Oscar.jl/dev/CommutativeAlgebra/ca/#Example-24
Hey so I'm reading this article by Chris Hecker where he has an image of a Parabola surrounded by the a vector field of it's derivative:
However he never mentions how exactly he got the vector field equation, and never even states it. He does say he overlayed the vector field of the slopes in Figure 1, by drawing the solution to the slope equation, dy/dx = 2x, as a short vector at each coordinate on the grid.
How do you create a vector field of the slopes of an equation in the vector field syntax of
V = xi + yj
The Figure title would be clearer if it read:
The curve y = x^2, and the vector field dy/dx = 2x for the general case y = x^2 + C
There are three equations at work in the graph above:
y = x^2 - The equation for the parabola drawn - This is the one long solid curve
y = x^2 + C -The equation for all parabolas that fit on the vector field - C is a constant. This is the equation for all parabolas that fit on that vector field
dy/dx = 2x The equation for the slope field. - This is the slope or derivative of the both the curve drawn and all the possible curves that can be drawn with y = x^2 + C for all constant Cs.
Note that C is a constant, since the derivative of y = x^2 + C with any C is 2x. So the vector field shows how to draw all the different parabolas with different Cs.
So there are two ways to calculate the vector field:
Iterate over your desired range of x and y and calculate the slope, dy/dx- 2x independent of y in this case - at each point. This is how the author did it.
Draw a bunch of parabolas by slowly varying C in y = x^2 + C over a desired range of - let's say - x calculating y.
For a differential equation dy/dx = f(x,y) (e.g., dy/dx = 2x in this case, with f(x,y) = 2x), the vector field (F) will be F = i + f(x,y)j (so in your case, F = i + 2x j )
I'm trying to generate some axis vectors from parameters commonly used to specify crystallographic unit cells. These parameters consist of the length of the three axes: a,b,c and the angles between them: alpha,beta,gamma. By convention alpha is the angle between the b and c axes, beta is between a and c, and gamma between a and b.
Now getting vector representations for the first two is easy. I can arbitrarily set the the a axis to the x axis, so a_axis = [a,0,0]. I then need to rotate b away from a by the angle gamma, so I can stay in the x-y plane to do so, and b_axis = [b*cos(gamma),b*sin(gamma),0].
The problem is the third vector. I can't figure out a nice clean way to determine it. I've figured out some different interpretations but none of them have panned out. One is imagining the there are two cones around the axes axis_a and axis_b whose sizes are specified by the angles alpha and beta. The intersection of these cones create two lines, the one in the positive z direction can be used as the direction for axis_c, of length c.
Does someone know how I should go about determining the axis_c?
Thanks.
The angle alpha between two vectors u,v of known length can be found from their inner (dot) product <u,v>:
cos(alpha) = <u,v>/(||u|| ||v||)
That is, the cosine of alpha is the inner product of the two vectors divided by the product of their lengths.
So the z-component of your third can be any nonzero value. Scaling any or all of the axis vectors after you get the angles right won't change the angles, so let's assume (say) Cz = 1.
Now the first two vectors might as well be A = (1,0,0) and B = (cos(gamma),sin(gamma),0). Both of these have length 1, so the two conditions to satisfy with choosing C are:
cos(alpha) = <B,C>/||C||
cos(beta) = <A,C>/||C||
Now we have only two unknowns, Cx and Cy, to solve for. To keep things simple I'm going to just refer to them as x and y, i.e. C = (x,y,1). Thus:
cos(alpha) = [cos(gamma)*x + sin(gamma)*y]/sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + 1)
cos(beta) = x/(sqrt(x^2 + y^2 + 1)
Dividing the first equation by the second (assuming beta not a right angle!), we get:
cos(alpha)/cos(beta) = cos(gamma) + sin(gamma)*(y/x)
which is a linear equation to solve for the ratio r = y/x. Once you have that, substituting y = rx in the second equation above and squaring gives a quadratic equation for x:
cos^2(beta)*((1+r^2)x^2 + 1) = x^2
cos^2(beta) = (1 - cos^2(beta)*(1 + r^2))x^2
x^2 = cos^2(beta)/[(1 - cos^2(beta)*(1 + r^2))]
By squaring the equation we introduced an artifact root, corresponding to choosing the sign of x. So check the solutions for x you get from this in the "original" second equation to make sure you get the right sign for cos(beta).
Added:
If beta is a right angle, things are simpler than the above. x = 0 is forced, and we have only to solve the first equation for y:
cos(alpha) = sin(gamma)*y/sqrt(y^2 + 1)
Squaring and multiplying away the denominator gives a quadratic for y, similar to what we did before. Remember to check your choice of a sign for y:
cos^2(alpha)*(y^2 + 1) = sin^2(gamma)*y^2
cos^2(alpha) = [sin^2(gamma) - cos^2(alpha)]*y^2
y^2 = cos^2(alpha)/[sin^2(gamma) - cos^2(alpha)]
Actually if one of the angles alpha, beta, gamma is a right angle, it might be best to label that angle gamma (between the first two vectors A,B) to simplify the computation.
Here is a way to find all Cx, Cy, Cz (first two are the same as in the other answer), given that A = (Ax,0,0), B = (Bx, By, 0), and assuming that |C| = 1
1) cos(beta) = AC/(|A||C|) = AxCx/|A| => Cx = |A|cos(beta)/Ax = cos(beta)
2) cos(alpha) = BC/(|B||C|) = (BxCx+ByCy)/|B| => Cy = (|B|cos(alpha)-Bx cos(beta))/By
3) To find Cz let O be the point at (0,0,0), T the point at (Cx,Cy,Cz), P be the projection of T on Oxy and Q be the projection of T on Ox. So P is the point at (Cx,Cy,0) and Q is the point at (Cx,0,0). Thus from the right angle triangle OQT we get
tan(beta) = |QT|/||OQ| = |QT|/Cx
and from the right triangle TPQ we get |TP|^2 + |PQ|^2 = |QT|^2. So
Cz = |TP| = sqrt(|QT|^2 - |PQ|^2) = sqrt( Cx^2 tan(beta)^2 - Cy^2 )
I'm not sure if this is correct but I might as well take a shot. Hopefully I won't get a billion down votes...
I'm too lazy to scale the vectors by the necessary amounts, so I'll assume they are all normalized to have a length of 1. You can make some simple modifications to the calculation to account for the varying sizes. Also, I'll use * to represent the dot product.
A = (1, 0, 0)
B = (cos(g), sin(g), 0)
C = (Cx, Cy, Cz)
A * C = cos(beta) //This is just a definition of the dot product. I'm assuming that the magnitudes are 1, so I can skip that portion, and you said that beta was the angle between A and C.
A * C = Cx //I did this by multiplying each corresponding value, and the Cy and Cz were ignored because they were being multiplied by 0
cos(beta) = Cx //Combine the previous two equations
B * C = cos(alpha)
B * C = Cx*cos(g) + Cy*sin(g) = cos(beta) * cos(g) + Cy*sin(g)
(cos(alpha) - cos(beta) * cos(g))/(sin(g)) = Cy
To be honest, I'm not sure how to get the z component of vector C, but I would expect it to be one more relatively easy step. If I can figure it out, I'll edit my post.
I know this isn't exactly programming related per se, but programmers are the most
probable of all people who will recognize this maybe.
I have the following (X and Y are arrays, both with 3 elements), and I cannot recognize (although it reminds me of a few things, but none quite!) what is being done here. Does it ring any bells for anyone else ?
I gather you can disregard the lower part; the upper should probably give it away ... but I still cannot see it.
At first it reminded me of linear interpolation in 3d space ...
SUBROUTINE TRII(X,Y,XR,YR)
DIMENSION X(3),Y(3)
D=X(1)*(X(2)**2-X(3)**2)+
> X(2)*(X(3)**2-X(1)**2)+
> X(3)*(X(1)**2-X(2)**2)
D1=Y(1)*(X(2)*X(3)**2-X(3)*X(2)**2)+
> Y(2)*(X(3)*X(1)**2-X(1)*X(3)**2)+
> Y(3)*(X(1)*X(2)**2-X(2)*X(1)**2)
D2=Y(1)*(X(2)**2-X(3)**2)+
> Y(2)*(X(3)**2-X(1)**2)+
> Y(3)*(X(1)**2-X(2)**2)
D3=X(2)*(Y(3)-Y(1))+
> X(1)*(Y(2)-Y(3))+
> X(3)*(Y(1)-Y(2))
A=D1/D
B=D2/D
C=D3/D
YR=A+B*XR+C*XR**2
RETURN
END
SUBROUTINE TRIM(X,Y,XR,YR,XM,YM)
DIMENSION X(3),Y(3)
D=X(1)*(X(2)**2-X(3)**2)+
> X(2)*(X(3)**2-X(1)**2)+
> X(3)*(X(1)**2-X(2)**2)
D1=Y(1)*(X(2)*X(3)**2-X(3)*X(2)**2)+
> Y(2)*(X(3)*X(1)**2-X(1)*X(3)**2)+
> Y(3)*(X(1)*X(2)**2-X(2)*X(1)**2)
D2=Y(1)*(X(2)**2-X(3)**2)+
> Y(2)*(X(3)**2-X(1)**2)+
> Y(3)*(X(1)**2-X(2)**2)
D3=X(2)*(Y(3)-Y(1))+
> X(1)*(Y(2)-Y(3))+
> X(3)*(Y(1)-Y(2))
A=D1/D
B=D2/D
C=D3/D
XR=-B/(2.*C)
YR=A+B*XR+C*XR**2
XM=XR
IF(XR.GT.X(1).OR.XR.LT.X(3))XM=X(1)
YM=A+B*XM+C*XM**2
IF(YM.LT.Y(1))XM=X(1)
IF(YM.LT.Y(1))YM=Y(1)
RETURN
END
">" is a continuation sign.
The code run as follows
Routine TRII takes as input the coordinates of three points (x,y) and interpolates a parabola using Lagrange interpolation. Also takes as input the coordinate XR. Returns in YR the value at XR for the interpolating parabola.
I guess the name of the routine comes from "TRI" (Croatian for "three" (points)) and "I" for Interpolation.
Routine TRIM also calculates the same parabola, and returns the minimun value of the function in the interval {X(1),X(3)}.The name comes from "TRI" and "M" (minimum)
(I "really" executed the program) >)
Note that this is FORTRAN code and the parameters are passed by reference, so the results are returned back in the same parameters (very odd!)
Edit
Just for fun, let's run TRII
TRII[X_, Y_, XR_] :=
Module[{D0, D1, D2, D3, A, B, C},
D0 = X[[1]]*(X[[2]]^2 - X[[3]]^2) +
X[[2]]*(X[[3]]^2 - X[[1]]^2) +
X[[3]]*(X[[1]]^2 - X[[2]]^2);
D1 = Y[[1]]*(X[[2]]*X[[3]]^2 - X[[3]]*X[[2]]^2) +
Y[[2]]*(X[[3]]*X[[1]]^2 - X[[1]]*X[[3]]^2) +
Y[[3]]*(X[[1]]*X[[2]]^2 - X[[2]]*X[[1]]^2);
D2 = Y[[1]]*(X[[2]]^2 - X[[3]]^2) +
Y[[2]]*(X[[3]]^2 - X[[1]]^2) +
Y[[3]]*(X[[1]]^2 - X[[2]]^2);
D3 = X[[2]]*(Y[[3]] - Y[[1]]) +
X[[1]]*(Y[[2]] - Y[[3]]) +
X[[3]]*(Y[[1]] - Y[[2]]);
A = D1/D0;
B = D2/D0;
C = D3/D0;
Return[A + B*XR + C*XR^2];];
X = RandomReal[1, 3];
Y = RandomReal[1, 3];
Show[Plot[TRII[X, Y, x], {x, 0, 1}],
ListPlot[Transpose[{X, Y}], PlotMarkers -> Automatic]]
D is the determinant of the matrix:
| x(1) x(1)² 1 |
D = det | x(2) x(2)² 1 |
| x(3) x(3)² 1 |
In D1, the rightmost column has been replaced with Y:
| x(1) x(1)² Y(1) |
D1 = det | x(2) x(2)² Y(2) |
| x(3) x(3)² Y(3) |
In D2, and D3 it's the first and second columns, respectively. Is it easier to recognize now? Looks a lot like using Cramer's rule to solve a linear equation to me.
Edit: To be more precise: (A, B, C) is the solution to the system:
A + x(1)*B + x(1)²*C = Y(1)
A + x(2)*B + x(2)²*C = Y(2)
A + x(3)*B + x(3)²*C = Y(3)
YR is the square of the solution to the quadratic equation (nb, different x!):
C*x² + B*x + A = 0
I feel like this should be obvious now, but I can't quite grasp it...
This code represents a kind of interpolation/quadratic curve fitting on three 2d points together with a way to compute the minimum or maximum value of such a fitted quadratic within the interval itself. I guess that TRII stands for triple (point)-interpolation and TRIM stands for triple (point) minimum or maximum.
To be more precised TRII solves the problem :- find a quadratic curve that passes through the points (x1,y1),(x2,y2) and (x3,y3) in the form Y=A+BX+CX^2 and compute the Y value of the quadratic at the point XR and return as YR. This is basically a way to interpolate smoothly between three 2d points. It is often used to find a better approximation for the max or min value of a set of discrete data points.
All the D, D1, D2, D3 stuff is to solve the matrix equation:
(1 X1 X1^2) *(A) = (Y1)
(1 X2 X2^2) *(B) = (Y2)
(1 X3 X3^2) *(C) = (Y3)
using Cramers rule as mentioned in one of the other comments, D is the matrix determinant and D1, D2, D3 are co-factors.
TRIM again computes the quadratic Y=A+BX+CX^2 and then finds a max/min of this quadratic (XM, YM). This is done by initially finding the point where the quadratic has a turning point: if F(X)=A+BX+CX^2, F'(XR)=B+2*C*XR=0, or XR=-B/2*C, YR=A+BXR+CXR^2. There is then some logic to force the returned XM, YM min or max values to lie within certain bounds.
The code:
XM=XR
.
.
.
IF(YM.LT.Y(1))YM=Y(1)
Is a little weird since if we assume that GT and LT mean greater than and less than respectively then we need to assume that X3'<'X1 otherwise the condition (XR.GT.X(1).OR.XR.LT.X(3)) is trivial and XM,YM are set to X1, Y1.
So X3'<'X1 and the condition says that if the quadratics max/min value is outside the interval (X1,X3) then set (XM,YM) to (X1, Y1) as before. If not then if Y1 is above the min/max value in Y then again set (XM,YM) to (X1, Y1).
It is hard to understand what this means and I suspect the code may be wrong! Any thoughts?
Ivan
I'm not sure what language this is, but it's clear that this is some sort of solver for quadratic equations. The XR and YR expressions are a dead giveaway:
XR = -B / (2.*C)
YR = A + B*XR + C*XR**2
Without knowing what the X(1..3) and Y(1..3) expressions are, however, it's not going to be possible to infer too much more about what the A/B/C coefficients represent, however. Lots of things use quadratic equations -- area of a circle given the radius, intensity of light at a given distance, et cetera. More contextual data is required.
Update: The OP indicated that he can't be too much more specific for secrecy reasons. Here are some hints, though:
What does the subroutine return? How are those results used later on? That may lead to better insights.
It appears that Y(1) is some sort of magic lower bound for the result of this computation. Notice that if YM is less than Y(1), then both XM and YM are set to X(1) and Y(1), respectively.
The "D" expressions look like this, in more natural syntax:
d = x1 * [x2^2 - x3^2] + x2 * [x3^2 - x1^2] + x3 * [x1^1 - x2^2]
d1 = y1 * [x2*x3^2 - x3*x2^2] + y2 * [x3*x1^2 - x1*x3^2] + y3 * [x1*x2^2 - x1*x2^2]
d2 = y1 * [x2^2 - x3^2] + y2 * [x3^2 - x1^2] + y3 * [x1^2 - x2^2]
d3 = x2 * [y3 - y1] + x1 * [y2 - y3] * x3 * [y1 - y2]
This looks very much like some sort of matrix operation; D is almost certainly for "determinant". But there are other things that have the same mathematical relationship.
This is a way to solve linear equation systems, specifically cramers rule. Also have a look at the rule of sarrus. After that, you seem to construct a quadratic equation out of it.
Does anyone know how to minimize a function containing an integral in MATLAB? The function looks like this:
L = Int(t=0,t=T)[(AR-x)dt], A is a system parameter and R and x are related through:
dR/dt = axRY - bR, where a and b are constants.
dY/dt = -xRY
I read somewhere that I can use fminbnd and quad in combination but I am not able to make it work. Any suggestions?
Perhaps you could give more details of your integral, e.g. where is the missing bracket in [AR-x)dt]? Is there any dependence of x on t, or can we integrate dR/dt = axR - bR to give R=C*exp((a*x-b)*t)? In any case, to answer your question on fminbnd and quad, you could set A,C,T,a,b,xmin and xmax (the last two are the range you want to look for the min over) and use:
[x fval] = fminbnd(#(x) quad(#(t)A*C*exp((a*x-b)*t)-x,0,T),xmin,xmax)
This finds x that minimizes the integral.
If i didn't get it wrong you are trying to minimize respect to t:
\int_0^t{(AR-x) dt}
well then you just need to find the zeros of:
AR-x
This is just math, not matlab ;)
Here's some manipulation of your equations that might help.
Combining the second and third equations you gave gives
dR/dt = -a*(dY/dt)-bR
Now if we solve for R on the righthand side and plug it into the first equation you gave we get
L = Int(t=0,t=T)[(-A/b*(dR/dt + a*dY/dt) - x)dt]
Now we can integrate the first term to get:
L = -A/b*[R(T) - R(0) + Y(T) - Y(0)] - Int(t=0,t=T)[(x)dt]
So now all that matters with regards to R and Y are the endpoints. In fact, you may as well define a new function, Z which equals Y + R. Then you get
L = -A/b*[Z(T) - Z(0)] - Int(t=0,t=T)[(x)dt]
This next part I'm not as confident in. The integral of x with respect to t will give some function which is evaluated at t = 0 and t = T. This function we will call X to give:
L = -A/b*[Z(T) - Z(0)] - X(T) + X(0)
This equation holds true for all T, so we can set T to t if we want to.
L = -A/b*[Z(t) - Z(0)] - X(t) + X(0)
Also, we can group a lot of the constants together and call them C to give
X(t) = -A/b*Z(t) + C
where
C = A/b*Z(0) + X(0) - L
So I'm not sure what else to do with this, but I've shown that the integral of x(t) is linearly related to Z(t) = R(t) + Y(t). It seems to me that there are many equations that solve this. Anyone else see where to go from here? Any problems with my math?