Troubleshooting Mathematica's Simplify Function for Finding the Norm of a Vector

  • Context: Mathematica 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Pengwuino
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Mathematica Simplify
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around troubleshooting the Simplify function in Mathematica for finding the norm of the derivative of a vector function, r(t) = {6Sqrt[2]t, 3Exp[2t], 3Exp[-2t]}. Participants explore the challenges faced when Mathematica fails to simplify the expression as expected, and the implications for further calculations involving tangential and normal vectors.

Discussion Character

  • Technical explanation
  • Debate/contested
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • One participant describes the function r(t) and expresses frustration that Mathematica cannot simplify the norm of its derivative, r'[t], despite using various simplification commands.
  • Another participant provides a detailed calculation of the norm of r'[t], arriving at the expression 12cosh(2t), assuming t is real.
  • A different participant expresses concern about needing to simplify the result into a non-hyperbolic form for further vector calculations.
  • One participant, lacking access to Mathematica, shares their experience with Matlab's Symbolic Toolbox and suggests that simplification can sometimes be achieved manually.
  • There is a discussion about the output from Mathematica, where one participant notes that it does produce a correct result, but questions arise regarding the presence of Re[t] in the output, which seems unexpected.
  • Another participant reflects on their own calculations, noting discrepancies between their expectations and the output they received, particularly regarding the treatment of the real part of t.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants do not reach a consensus on the effectiveness of Mathematica's simplification capabilities, with some asserting that it produces correct results while others express confusion and frustration over its output. Multiple competing views on how to approach the simplification and the implications for further calculations remain evident.

Contextual Notes

Participants reference assumptions about the variable t being real, and there are indications of unresolved issues regarding the handling of complex numbers in the output from Mathematica. The discussion also highlights a lack of clarity on why certain simplifications yield unexpected results.

Pengwuino
Gold Member
Messages
5,112
Reaction score
20
I have a function here...

r(t) ={6Sqrt[2]t, 3Exp[2t], 3Exp[-2t]}

I needed to find the norm of r'[t]... yet when Mathematica tries to simplify it, it can't do it with simplify, powerexpand[simplify[]], fullsimplify... and this function IS suppose to be able to simplify. I then started running through every basic algebraic manipulation tool and came up empty...

I restarted mathematica thinking the kernel had just given up on me but that didn't work.

PowerExpand[Simplify[]] gives me 12Cosh[2Re[t]] and that can't be it...

Someone think they know what's going on here?
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Sure it's right

[tex]r(t) =\left< 6\sqrt{2}t, 3e^{2t}, 3e^{-2t}\right>[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow r^{\prime}(t) =\left< 6\sqrt{2}, 6e^{2t}, -6e^{-2t}\right>[/tex]
[tex]\Rightarrow \left| r^{\prime}(t)\right| = \left| \left< 6\sqrt{2}, 6e^{2t}, -6e^{-2t}\right> \right| = \sqrt{6^{2}2+6^{2}e^{4t}+6^{2}e^{-4t}}[/tex]
[tex]= 6\sqrt{2+e^{4t}+e^{-4t}}=6\sqrt{\left(e^{2t}+e^{-2t}\right) ^2}=12\left(\frac{e^{2t}+e^{-2t}}{2}\right) = 12\cosh(2t)[/tex]

assuming [itex]t\in\mathbb{R}[/itex]
 
Crap... then I need to figure out how to simplify it into something that isn't a hyperbolic function...

I need to find tangential and normal and binormal vectors and I'm not sure how I'm going to be able to do it with that equation...
 
Pengwuino said:
I have a function here...
r(t) ={6Sqrt[2]t, 3Exp[2t], 3Exp[-2t]}
I needed to find the norm of r'[t]... yet when Mathematica tries to simplify it, it can't do it with simplify, powerexpand[simplify[]], fullsimplify... and this function IS suppose to be able to simplify. I then started running through every basic algebraic manipulation tool and came up empty...
I restarted mathematica thinking the kernel had just given up on me but that didn't work.
I feel your pain. I don't have access to Mathematica, but I do use Matlab's Symbolic Toolbox, which is based on the Maple engine. Sometimes it is soooo stupid ... Forcing things sometimes helps, sometimes not.

On the other hand, this is simple expression to simplify by hand.
Assuming [itex]t[/itex] is real,
[tex] \begin{align*}<br /> \mathbf{r}(t) &=\begin{bmatrix}6\sqrt 2 t & 3\exp(2t) & 3\exp(-2t)\end{bmatrix} \\<br /> \dot{\mathbf r}(t) &= \begin{bmatrix}6\sqrt 2 & 6\exp(2t) & -6\exp(-2t)\end{bmatrix} \\<br /> \lVert{\dot{\mathbf r}(t)}\rVert^2<br /> &= \dot{\mathbf r}(t) \cdot \dot{\mathbf r}(t) \\<br /> &= 36 \exp(4t) + 72 + 36 \exp(-4t) \\<br /> &= \left(6\left(\exp(2t) + \exp(-2t)\right)\right)^2 \\<br /> &= \left(12 \cosh(2t)\right)^2 \\<br /> \intertext{thus}<br /> \lVert{\dot{\mathbf r}(t)}\rVert &= 12 \cosh(2t)\right<br /> \end{align*}[/tex]
Why use Mathematica?

PowerExpand[Simplify[]] gives me 12Cosh[2Re[t]] and that can't be it...
Someone think they know what's going on here?
Wait a sec, I thought you said Mathematica couldn't simplify it. Now you said it does, and it came up with the right answer to boot. (Mathematica's answer is correct even if [itex]t[/itex] is complex).
 
Last edited:
Well I thought it was screwing up, the unsimplified form had these Re[t]'s in it as the magnitude of r'[t] when it seems like it only should have had e's unless I am going into really complicated things here.

I got this...

[tex]\sqrt {72 + 36e^{ - 4{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} [t]} + 36e^{4{\mathop{\rm Re}\nolimits} [t]} }[/tex]

When I thought I would get this…[tex]\sqrt {72 + 36e^{-4t} + 36e^{4t} }[/tex]
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
4K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 5 ·
Replies
5
Views
3K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
9K
  • · Replies 6 ·
Replies
6
Views
9K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
5K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • · Replies 1 ·
Replies
1
Views
4K