Nested expressions as compositions of functions?

  • Context: Undergrad 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Stephen Tashi
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Expressions Functions
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the representation of finite nested expressions as compositions of functions, particularly in the context of polynomial expressions. Participants explore various methods of expressing these nested forms, including the use of multiple variables and affine transformations.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested

Main Points Raised

  • One participant proposes using functions of two variables to express nested polynomial forms, exemplified by a polynomial expressed through Horner's technique.
  • Another participant suggests that the necessity of two variables can be avoided by considering scalar multiples and shifts, arguing that each function can be expressed as a composition of affine linear functions.
  • A later reply questions the definition of function composition being used, highlighting a misunderstanding regarding the generation of polynomial terms, specifically the absence of higher power terms in certain compositions.
  • One participant acknowledges a mistake in their previous reasoning and introduces the idea of an additional operator to account for increasing powers of x in polynomial expressions.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express differing views on the necessity of using two variables for function composition and the correct interpretation of function composition itself. The discussion remains unresolved regarding the optimal approach to represent nested expressions.

Contextual Notes

There are limitations in the definitions and assumptions regarding function composition and the operations required to generate polynomial terms. The discussion reflects varying interpretations of these concepts.

Stephen Tashi
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Education Advisor
Messages
7,864
Reaction score
1,605
TL;DR
How can we express nested expressions as a compositions of functions?
How can we write (finite) nested expressions as compositions of functions?

For example (using Horner's technique), consider:
##P(x) = 3 + 2x + 4x^2 + 6 x^3 = 3 + x(2 + x(4 + x(6) ) )##

The way I see to do it is to use functions of two variables.

##f_3(x,y) = 6##
##f_2(x,y) = 4 + xy##
##f_1(x,y) = 2 + xy##
##f_0(x,y) = 3 + xy##

##P(x) = f_0(x,(f_1(x,f_2(x,f_3(x,x)))))##

It seems unnatural to introduce two variables in order to get a nested expression in one variable, but I see no way around it.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
If two variables are necessary, you can still consider functions ##f\times g \, : \,(x,y) \longrightarrow h(f(x),g(y)## but this isn't necessary here. We have only scalar multiples ##M_c## and additional shifts ##A_s##. Every ##f_i## can be written as ##f_i(x)=\left(A_{s_i} \circ M_{c_i} \right)(x) := s_i + c_ix##. Hence we have
$$
(f_j \circ f_i)(x)=(A_{s_j}\circ M_{c_j}\circ A_{s_i}\circ M_{c_i})(x)= (A_{s_j}\circ M_{c_j}\circ A_{s_i})(c_ix)=(A_{s_j}\circ M_{c_j})(s_i+c_i x)=(A_{s_j})(c_j(s_i+c_ix)x)=s_j+ (c_j(s_i+c_ix)x)
$$
This shows, that you parameterized the functions, not the variable. Of course any ##A_s\circ M_c## can be written as affine linear function ##L(s,c)(x)=s+cx## which gives you one parameter ##(s,c)\in \mathbb{R}\times \mathbb{R}^\times## instead of two.
 
fresh_42 said:
Every ##f_i## can be written as ##f_i(x)=\left(A_{s_i} \circ M_{c_i} \right)(x) := s_i + c_ix##.

I don't understand what definition you are using for the composition of functions. For example, if ##f_1(x) = 3 + 5x## and ##f_2(x) = 4 + 6x## then ##f_1(f_2(x)) = 4 + 6( 3 + 5x) = 22 + 30x## and I don't get any ##x^2## term.
 
You're right, what a stupid mistake me made. We would need an additional operator ##R_x\, : \,p(x)\longrightarrow p(x)\cdot x## to increase the powers of ##x## - just as many as there are (ring) operations: addition, scalar multiplication and normal multiplication. We could define ##R_{q(x)}(p(x))=p(x)\cdot q(x)## but that would overload the index.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
2K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
1K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
1K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
2K