Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » Software » comp.soft-sys.math.mathematica

Topic: Applying Mathematica to practical problems
Replies: 6   Last Post: Jun 3, 2013 11:13 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Richard Fateman

Posts: 286
Registered: 12/7/04
Re: Applying Mathematica to practical problems
Posted: Jun 3, 2013 11:10 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 6/3/2013 3:05 AM, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
>
> On 3 Jun 2013, at 09:34, Richard Fateman <fateman@cs.berkeley.edu>
> wrote:
>

>> On 6/1/2013 9:23 PM, Andrzej Kozlowski wrote:
>>> This is one of many examples of "cross purpose" arguing. I was
>>> not discussing implementing non-standard analysis at all. My
>>> point was that that there is nothing logically more dubious about
>>> a finite "number" x such that x+1=1 than there is about a
>>> positive "number" x such that nx< 1 for every positive integer n,
>>> or, alternatively, finite "number" x such that x/n >1 for every
>>> positive integer n. Mathematicians often use the word "number"
>>> when referring to objects belonging to some "extension" of the
>>> real line.

>>
>> Oh where to start. Here's one place.
>>
>> You say it is ok to have a number x such that x+1=1. I agree. I
>> say it is NOT ok to have a number x such that x+1=x. You respond It
>> is ok to have a number x such that x+1=1. Can you see the
>> difference?

>
> Yes, I was careless about this, but that was because it does not
> really matter. It is O.K. to extend the real line to an algebraic and
> topological sturcture which contains objects such x such that x+1=x.

So such systems have the AK seal of approval. Argument settled??

Since such objects do not satisfy the necessary axioms for real numbers,
they cannot be part of the real line.

Computer algebra systems sometimes have to adopt models of an extension
to the real line to accommodate
certain calculations typically involving limits and division by zero or
perhaps complex numbers. This
extension may include +inf, -inf, and und (these may be 1/0, -1/0, and
0/0). There are other ways of
doing this. Where to read about a design for such a system ? See the
IEEE 754 binary float explanations.

> Of course such objects do not have inverses, so you can't conclude
> that 0=1.

That is true, there is no number x such that inf + x == 0.
inf+FiniteNumber is inf.
It is usually somewhat discomforting to add to a system that used to be
bound by the axioms of the reals,
these exceptional numbers. But there are only a few. 3. And they can
be easily explained and they
come up in limited circumstances. They indeed cause some difficulties,
and they are sometimes
excluded from certain kinds of systems entirely.

Mathematica has an infinitude of such numbers, and it means among other
things that equality
fails to be transitive, one of the fundamental axioms of many algebraic
and probably all reasonable
logical systems. In Mathematica: A==B and B==C implies A==C.
Is FALSE.


> All this means that equality is a non-transitive relation on this
> extended set of objects (but identity is). That is also logically
> perfectly sound.


So your response is, like Peewee Herman "I meant to do that!".

It is perhaps up to the users of Mathematica to decide if they are
comfortable with what you
consider a "logically perfectly sound" system like this. I find it
objectionable.

It means one can encounter a value for x such that x==4 is true but x>3
is false.

It is difficult to disentangle such peculiar results from the rest of
the arithmetic.

>>
>>
>> Also is the Grobner basis program in Mathematica the fastest? I
>> suspect it is not, though I have not compared it to Faugere's work,
>> or other unnamed systems. Is it the only one using significance
>> arithmetic? I suspect it is. What would that prove? What would
>> that prove about use as a default?

>
> This is nonsense. Faugere does not work on numerical analysis and has
> not implemented a numerical Groebner basis. Other people have worked
> on approximate Grobener bases using fixed precision arithmetic but
> (as far as I know) there are no working implementations available.


I think the goal of the numerical Groebner basis algorithms is to
provide a fast computation
of the exact results by using approximate numerics. If so it is not an
entirely different subject.
The numerical solution of systems of algebraic equations to find (one)
solution IS a
different task from finding them all.
And of those researchers doing Groebner basis computations with numerical
approximation, how does Mathematica compare?

>
>
> Groebner bases with exact coefficients are an entirely different
> subject, unrelated to this discussion.
>
>

>>
>> Finally, I would remind AK (and others) that proving some number of
>> correct results does not prove an algorithm is correct. Proving
>> even one incorrect result demonstrates a bug.
>>

>
> You have never demonstrated one incorrect result proved by
> Mathematica.

Right. Mathematica does not actually "prove" incorrect results. It
merely delivers them.

Solve[x+1==x,x] returns {}
yet
1`0 +1`0 == 1`0 returns True.

RJF




>
>
> AK
>




Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.