Search Fail Reason #101: missing "-a" flag for binary file matching. RTFM! Once I got the search working, I also found that on Tue Oct 11 19:07:21 MDT 2011 Warren Smith conjectured that the triangle inequality is obeyed for girths. Isn't this also obvious? Cutting out an octant on the symmetry planes gives a triangular shaped region with quarter-girth 1-boundaries. The total 1-boundary is topologically a triangle, and can be flattened into the plane. As for the series reversions, I'm impressed you can get that far. However, to get to arbitrary precision would be difficult and FindRoot seems to be outperforming the symbolic-numeric method for now. After another Zen-style reduction, we get back to the easier question, mentioned earlier: Say that we have a quantum pendulum, and would like to use series reversion to calculate zero-order estimates of the eigenvalues. To do so we need some idea of the coefficients: With[{ser = Normal@InverseSeries[ Series[x Hypergeometric2F1[1/2, 1/2, 2, x], {x, 0, 10}]]}, CoefficientList[(ser/k) /. x -> k x, x] /. k -> 16] Out[128]= { 0, 1, -2, -4, -20, -132, -1008, -8432, -75096, -700180, -6761040 } But this sequence isn't even in the OEIS ! Why not ? --Brad On Tue, Jun 25, 2019 at 2:08 AM Bill Gosper <billgosper@gmail.com> wrote:
I just got your original request! But I was already working to find the old mail. Finally: ellipsoid from girths: multivariate series reversion On Mon, Jun 24, 2019 at 11:40 PM rwg <rwg@ma.sdf.org> wrote:
-------- Original Message -------- Subject: Re: [math-fun] Is it me, or is math.stackexchange.com controlled by morons? Date: 2019-06-24 20:16 From: Brad Klee <bradklee@gmail.com> To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com> Reply-To: math-fun <math-fun@mailman.xmission.com>
Years ago I posted here several trivariate series reversions for the semiaxes in the general case, and expressed surprise at the apparent absence of such a technique from the literature.
I asked Bill to no response . . . Thread name / date, anyone ?
I also tried to grep "rwg" + catch-phrase or "gosper" + catch-phrase, to no avail. (I did find something funny about a rattleback though).
Do I need to give the many reasons why this is not an efficient search strategy, and not likely to produce the desired results?
Isn't it more polite when making this sort of assertion to give the referencing information so that the readers don't have to waste their own time searching through thousands of email files?
--Brad
On Mon, Oct 17, 2011 at 5:20 PM Bill Gosper <billgosper@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sun, Oct 9, 2011 at 4:10 PM, Bill Gosper <billgosper@gmail.com> wrote:
Corey notes that ellipsoid girths can't be {large, tiny, tiny} and challenges us to find the "ellipsoid girth inequality" analogous to the triangle inequality.
What are the dimensions (semiaxes a,b, and c) of say, the ellipsoidoidal rock by the road near the Foothill College fire station, given the girths gab, gac, gbc; a>b>c? (Assuming you can get the damned thing off your tape measure once you've rolled it on.)
In terms of a, b, c, the girths are {gab -> 4 a EllipticE[1 - b^2/a^2], gac -> 4 a EllipticE[1 - c^2/a^2], gbc -> 4 b EllipticE[1 - c^2/b^2]}
This is a routine problem for FindRoot, but it would be nice to see how a, b, c depend on the girths in the low eccentricity case, say, by reverting the series expansions of the girths. Julian, Corey, and I were surprised by the absence of multivariate reversion from Macsyma and Mathematica, and set about building our own. After several hours of cruel hoodwinking by Mma's Series facility, we emerged having only solved the ellipsoid case. Surprisingly(?), it has at least eight (2^3) solutions, which may help to explain the shortage of multivariate reverters. To fourth order,
{a -> (gab/(2 Pi))(1 - eac + eac^2 + ebc + (eac ebc)/2 - (3 ebc^2)/2 + 1/8 (-8 eac^3 - eac^2 ebc - 9 eac ebc^2 + 18 ebc^3) + 1/16 (16 eac^4 + 2 eac^3 ebc - 3 eac^2 ebc^2 + 42 eac ebc^3 - 57 ebc^4)),
a -> (gac/(2 Pi))(1 + ebc + 3/2 (eac ebc - ebc^2) + 3/8 (eac^2 ebc - 7 eac ebc^2 + 6 ebc^3) - 3/16 (7 eac^2 ebc^2 - 26 eac ebc^3 + 19 ebc^4))}
{b -> (gab/(2 Pi))(1 + eac - (3 eac^2)/2 - ebc + (eac ebc)/2 + ebc^2 + 1/8 (18 eac^3 - 9 eac^2 ebc - eac ebc^2 - 8 ebc^3) + 1/16 (-57 eac^4 + 42 eac^3 ebc - 3 eac^2 ebc^2 + 2 eac ebc^3 + 16 ebc^4)),
b -> (gac/(2 Pi))(1 + 2 eac - eac^2/2 - ebc - (eac ebc)/2 + ebc^2 + 1/8 (6 eac^3 - 5 eac^2 ebc + 7 eac ebc^2 - 8 ebc^3) + 1/16 (-21 eac^4 + 24 eac^3 ebc - 5 eac^2 ebc^2 - 14 eac ebc^3 + 16 ebc^4))}
{c -> (gab/(2 Pi))(1 - eac + eac^2 + eac^4 - ebc - (eac ebc)/2 - (eac^3 ebc)/ 8 + ebc^2 - (5 eac^2 ebc^2)/16 - (eac ebc^3)/8 + ebc^4 + 1/8 (-8 eac^3 + eac^2 ebc + eac ebc^2 - 8 ebc^3)),
c -> (gac/(2 Pi))(1 - ebc - (3 eac ebc)/2 - (3 eac^2 ebc)/8 + ebc^2 + (9 eac ebc^2)/8 - (3 eac^2 ebc^2)/16 - ebc^3 - ( 9 eac ebc^3)/8 + ebc^4)}
where {eac -> gab/gac - 1, ebc -> gab/gbc - 1}, which are small for low eccentricity.
Actually, there are at least 3^3 solutions. The above are perturbations of either gab/2π or gac/2π, but we can multiply by
(1 + ebc) gbc/gab ==1
to get perturbations of gbc/2π. E.g., for the semimajor axis:
a -> (1/(2 \[Pi]))(1 - eac + 2 ebc + 1/2 (2 eac^2 - eac ebc - ebc^2) + 1/8 (-8 eac^3 + 7 eac^2 ebc - 5 eac ebc^2 + 6 ebc^3) + 1/16 (16 eac^4 - 14 eac^3 ebc - 5 eac^2 ebc^2 + 24 eac ebc^3 - 21 ebc^4)) gbc
Recovering a from the girths for a,b,c ={4,3,2} (more eccentric than 5,4,3) gives a -> 3.98064, for some reason better than {a -> 3.91836, a -> 3.94558} for the gab and gac perturbations. I expected the gab one to be best, not worst. Well, actually I didn't expect multiple solutions. And there are many more if we introduce an expansion variable = gac/gbc-1 ! Presumably, these are just various forms of a single solution, artifacts of the relations eac -> gab/gac - 1, ebc -> gab/gbc - 1, but their convergence can differ substantially. In the (impossible) case of girths 2,1, and 1, the fourth order solution pairs go {{a -> 1/\[Pi], a -> 1/\[Pi]}, {b -> 1/\[Pi], b -> 1/\[Pi]}, {c -> 3/(16 \[Pi]), c -> -(17/(32 \[Pi]))}} ! --rwg
E.g., for {a -> 5., b -> 4., c -> 3.}, the girth formulæ give
{gab -> 28.3617, gac -> 25.527, gbc -> 22.1035}.
Plugging these back into the reversions: {{a -> 4.97828, a -> 4.98561}, {b -> 4.00689, b -> 4.00371}, {c -> 3.0062, c -> 3.00353}}. --rwg