# Why the returned value is complex while my input is all real in Nminimize

This is the mathematica code I used. My goal is trying to solve eq2==0 && eq3==0 simultaneously in the region "-200

The FindRoot doesn't gives me quick answers. So I tried to use Nminimize to do that. This is the code I use. All the input constants are real, but Nminimize gives me a complex value. The documentation also says that "By default, all variables are assumed to be real"

https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/NMinimize.html

Clear[u, H, A, J, c, beta, int1, int2, eq1, eq2, eq3, res, subdomain];

A = 1;

J = 1;
c = 1;

beta = 0.001;

int1 = Integrate[E^(c*beta*l*H*(3/2 x^2 - 1/2)), {x, 0, 1}];

int2 = Integrate[(3/2 x^2 - l/2)*E^(c*beta*l*H*(3/2 x^2 - 1/2)), {x,
0, 1}];

sum1 = Sum[l^(3/2)*E^(-u*l)*(int1), {l, 1, 400}];

sum2 = Sum[l^(5/2)*E^(-u*l)*(int2), {l, 1, 400}];

eq1 = A*beta^(-3/2)*E^(-J*beta - 1/2*c*beta*H^2);

eq2 = eq1*(sum1) - 1;

eq3 = eq1*(sum2) - H;

subdomain = -200 < H < 400 && 0 < u;

res1 = NMinimize[{Total[{eq2, eq3}^2], subdomain}, {u, H}]

res2 = Last[res1]; resval = First[res1];

{eq1, eq2, eq3, u, H, resval} /. res2

InternalRealValuedNumericQ /@ {eq1, eq2, eq3, u, H, resval}

• All the numbers I see have 0 imaginary parts. You are using an undocumented internal function here. Do you fully understand what it does, in particular that it returns false for 1. + 0. I as well as for any symbol? – Szabolcs Oct 11 '15 at 19:46

Use increased (arbitrary) precision to avoid precision issues

Clear[u, H, A, J, c, beta, int1, int2,
eq1, eq2, eq3, res, subdomain];

A = 1; J = 1; c = 1;
beta = 0.001 // Rationalize;
int1 = Integrate[
E^(c*beta*l*H*(3/2 x^2 - 1/2)),
{x, 0, 1}];
int2 = Integrate[
(3/2 x^2 - l/2)*
E^(c*beta*l*H*(3/2 x^2 - 1/2)),
{x, 0, 1}];
sum1 = Sum[
l^(3/2)*E^(-u*l)*(int1),
{l, 1, 400}];
sum2 = Sum[
l^(5/2)*E^(-u*l)*(int2),
{l, 1, 400}];
eq1 = A*beta^(-3/2)*E^(-J*beta - 1/2*c*beta*H^2);
eq2 = eq1*sum1 - 1;
eq3 = eq1*sum2 - H;
subdomain = -200 < H < 400 && 0 < u;

res1 = NMinimize[
{Total[{eq2, eq3}^2], subdomain},
{u, H},
WorkingPrecision -> 30];
res2 = Last[res1]; resval = First[res1];
{eq1, eq2, eq3, u, H, resval} /. res2

(*  {0.010859851424065928700302970525, -1.7528412826622928835*10^-9, \
-7.6728992787359*10^-12, 0.220316517407452903602755920252, \
-172.530087602530220808736082091, 3.07251143558853376444449236742*10^-18}  *)

• Thank you very much. This indeed gives the real value. – user56134 Oct 11 '15 at 22:25
• When you said "Use increased (arbitrary) precision to avoid precision issues", do you refer to "Working Precision-> 30 " ? Could you elaborate more on that ? How could I eliminate complex value when I increase Working Precision ? – user56134 Oct 11 '15 at 22:31
• That plus using Rationalize with definition of beta to convert it to an exact value (1/1000). – Bob Hanlon Oct 11 '15 at 22:35
• The negligible imaginary artifacts arise using machine precision. With greater precision and associated precision tracking the algorithms eliminate the imaginary artifacts. You should also read the documentation for 'Chop. – Bob Hanlon Oct 11 '15 at 23:25
• Thank you so much for the help. I have struggled with this for a long time. Thanks again. – user56134 Oct 12 '15 at 0:09