# Tag Info

5

Yes, in some rare cases it is indeed convenient to use the individual simplification functions, even though they are used inside FullSimplify. I think the general idea is that FullSimplify may not use the desired simplification at the exact step during the simplification where you want it to be used. This (probably) happens when the expression has so many ...

3

For problems like these, I like to take small steps and check each one, so please bear with me. First, we write the two exponential functions, which I am calling f1 and f2. Then write the next two more complicated functions, called gSing for singlet and gTrip for triplet. Then write an expression for the denominator and an expression for the volume ...

3

I think you will have to ask a mathematician if the limit is really 0 (or even real) since in Mathematica you can get this s[x_] := Sqrt[ Pi^2/12 + Sum[(x!*x!)/(k!*(2 x - k)!)*(-1)^(x - k)/(x - k), {k, 0, x - 1}]] s[x] // FullSimplify Limit[s[x], x -> Infinity] // FullSimplify So the limit seems to be complex, but I am not sure, I am not a ...

3

Is this what you are seeking? FullSimplify[f, u > 1] (* 1/2 u (-3 + 4 u) Sqrt[2 + 1/u - u^2] *) Response to edit in question The LeafCount of this result is LeafCount[%] (* 24 *) On the other hand, the LeafCount of the outcome desired by the OP is g = 1/2 (-3 + 4 u) Sqrt[-u (u + 1) (u^2 - u - 1)] LeafCount[%] (* 27 *) Note also that ...

3

Read the documentation about Rationalize Now starting from the complex form you can build you own function nicef = Exp[Rationalize[Im[Chop[Log[#]]], 1/16] I] & nicef[-0.735145 + 0.67791 I] E^((12 I)/5) or if the input is $a$ then just Rationalize[a,1/16]

3

If you translate the variables to be positive, you can use PowerExpand: ClearSystemCache[] Simplify[(-1 + x) Sqrt[(1 - x) (-1 + y^2)] + Sqrt[(1 - x)^3 (-1 + y^2)], -1 <= x <= 1 && -1 <= y <= 1, TransformationFunctions -> {Automatic, Simplify[ PowerExpand[# /. {x -> -1 + a, y -> -1 + b}] /. {a -> x + 1, b ...

3

Eliminate[{ k == (a b c t)/(Sqrt[(f + t)^2]), p == t/(t + f) }, {t, f}] a^2 b^2 c^2 p^2 == k^2

2

k = (a b c t)/(Sqrt[(f + t)^2]); Assuming that {t > 0, p > 0} Simplify[k /. t + f -> t/p, {t > 0, p > 0}] (* a b c p *) Or, Simplify[k /. f -> t (1 - p)/p, {t > 0, p > 0}] (* a b c p *) Or, assuming {0 <= p < 1, f > 0} Simplify[k /. t -> f p/(1 - p), {0 <= p < 1, f > 0}] (* a b c p *)

2

Try this: (-1 + x) Sqrt[(1 - x) (-1 + y^2)] + Sqrt[(1 - x)^3 (-1 + y^2)] /. Sqrt[a_^3*b_] -> a*Sqrt[a*b] // Simplify (* 0 *) Have fun!

2

I think the closest you can get to what you looking for is Assuming[{a, b, c} ∈ Reals, With[{x = {a, b, c}}, x.x == Norm[x]^2 // Simplify]] True

2

You cannot use @ as it is used for assignments etc. So just set up your own tensor product tp and inner product ip and define tp[id,v_]:=v tp[v_,id]:=v Tra[tp[a,b]]:=ip[a,b] Trans[tp[a,b]]:=tp[b,a] ip[tp[a,b],tp[c,d]]:=ip[b,c] tp[a,d] and tp[a_+b_,c_]:=tp[a,c]+tp[b,c] It is unclear as to what you mean by "respect scalar multiplication". If you only ...

2

Observing strictly that the domain of x as the upper limit of the summation index is the integers, the limit exists, it can be calculated easily with Mathematica and it is different from zero. We need to consider this sum \[Sigma]WH[x_] := Sqrt[\[Pi]^2/12 + Simplify[Sum[(x!*x!)/(k!*(2 x - k)!)*(-1)^(x - k)/(x - k), {k, 0, x - 1}], x \[Element] ...

1

Cases[a, coeff_.*e^(-0.0305607 t) :> coeff, 2] {0.678839} Cases[b, coeff_.*e^(-0.0305607 t) :> coeff, 2] {-0.660328} The pattern coeff_. would work even if the coefficient were 1, e.g. Cases[{e^(-0.0305607 t)}, coeff_.*e^(-0.0305607 t) :> coeff, 2] {1} because the dot, signifying default value, defaults to 1 in the case of a ...

1

The difference between both results is caused by a subtle difference in the inputs. The first replacement has a simple list of replacement rules: expr /. { f[v3, w3] -> a1 c1 f[v1, w1] + a1 c2 f[v1, w2] + a2 c1 f[v2, w1] + a2 c2 f[v2, w2], f[v4, w4] -> b1 d1 f[v1, w1] + b1 d2 f[v1, w2] + b2 d1 f[v2, w1] + b2 d2 f[v2, w2]} The second replacement ...

1

func[z_] := ((-2 + 4 I) Cos[0.0628319 z] + (2 - I) Sin[ 0.0628319 z])/((1 + 2 I) Cos[0.0628319 z] + (4 + 2 I) Sin[ 0.0628319 z]) ComplexExpand@func[0] Show[ Plot[ Im@func[z], {z, 0, 100}, PlotStyle -> Blue ], Plot[ Re@func[z], {z, 0, 100}, PlotStyle -> Red ], PlotRange -> All ] (*1.2 + 1.6 I*)

1

You're not tryng to get the imaginary part of a number. You are trying to get the imaginary part of an expression. Let's say we define your expression to be equivalent to eq: eq==(2 + 4 I) Cos[0.0628319 z] + (2 - I) Sin[0.0628319 z])/ ((1 + 2 I) Cos[0.0628319 z] + (4 + 2 I) Sin[0.0628319 z]) Solving the above for z gives 4 solutions. Lets say we take one ...

1

Interesting is that a graph Plot3D[(-1 + x) Sqrt[(1 - x) (-1 + y^2)] + Sqrt[(1 - x)^3 (-1 + y^2)], {x, -1, 1}, {y, -1, 1}] is a non-homogenous plain

1

Altough I cannot tell you what goes wrong with Simplify I would suggest implementing the simplification semi-manually. For example, with te = (-1 + x) Sqrt[(1 - x) (-1 + y^2)] + Sqrt[(1 - x)^3 (-1 + y^2)] you could use te /. a_.*Sqrt[b_] :>Simplify[Sign[a], -1 < x < 1 && -1 < y < 1]*Sqrt[Expand[a^2 b]] This brings the summands in ...

Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible