0

Consider the system of infinite series \begin{align} &F=x+\frac{y^{3^2}}{3}+\frac{x^{3^5}}{3^2}+\frac{y^{3^7}}{3^3}+\frac{x^{3^{10}}}{3^4}+\frac{y^{3^{12}}}{3^5}+\cdots=0 \\ &G=y+\frac{x^{3^3}}{3}+\frac{y^{3^5}}{3^2}+\frac{x^{3^{8}}}{3^3}+\frac{y^{3^{10}}}{3^4}+\frac{y^{3^{13}}}{3^5}+\cdots=0. \end{align}

I want to approximate its zeros using Newton-Raphson process/ any other method.

Since the above system consists of infinite series, we don't have technique unless we truncate the system. I am considering the following truncated system \begin{align} &F(x,y)=x+\frac{y^{3^2}}{3}+\frac{x^{3^5}}{3^2}+\frac{y^{3^7}}{3^3}+\frac{x^{3^{10}}}{3^4}=0 \\ &G(x,y)=y+\frac{x^{3^3}}{3}+\frac{y^{3^5}}{3^2}+\frac{x^{3^{8}}}{3^3}+\frac{y^{3^{10}}}{3^4}=0. \end{align}

This one I am going to try at first.


Now in my previous post, I have asked to solve the following system \begin{align} &f(x,y)=x+\frac{y^{2^2}}{2}+\frac{x^{2^5}}{2^2}+\frac{y^{2^7}}{2^3}=0 \\ &g(x,y)=y+\frac{x^{2^3}}{2}+\frac{y^{2^5}}{2^2}+\frac{x^{2^8}}{2^3}=0. \end{align} The Sage code, given by the use @dan_fulea, was

IR = RealField(150)
var('x,y');

f = x + y^4/2 + x^32/4 + y^128/8 g = y + x^4/2 + y^32/4 + x^256/8

a, b = IR(-1), IR(-1) J = matrix(2, 2, [diff(f, x), diff(f, y), diff(g, x), diff(g, y)]) v = vector(IR, 2, [IR(a), IR(b)])

for k in range(9): a, b = v[0], v[1] fv, gv = f.subs({x : a, y : b}), g.subs({x : a, y : b}) print(f'x{k} = {a}\ny{k} = {b}') print(f'f(x{k}, y{k}) = {fv}\ng(x{k}, y{k}) = {gv}\n') v = v - J.subs({x : a, y : b}).inverse() * vector(IR, 2, [fv, gv])

Using the initial guess $(-1,-1)$, the N-R process converges at $8$th iteration.


Unfortunately the same code seems to be inefficient to solve the above truncated system $$F(x,y)=0=G(x,y).$$ It seems this system is associated with higher degrees and that is why the above code is efficient. It needs modification.

Is there a more efficient computer code to solve the above truncated system system in N-R method or other numerical methods ?

Thanks

MAS
  • 10,898
  • I will say some words on the question. This question comes with a motivation. So instead of answering the question, it is better to look closer at the motivation. It concerns two series - seen as functions of $x,y$:$$\begin{aligned}F(x,y) &=x+\frac{y^{3^2}}{3}+\frac{x^{3^5}}{3^2}+\frac{y^{3^7}}{3^3}+\frac{x^{3^{10}}}{3^4}+\frac{y^{3^{12}}}{3^5}+\cdots \ G(x,y) &=y+\frac{x^{3^3}}{3}+\frac{y^{3^5}}{3^2}+\frac{x^{3^{8}}}{3^3}+\frac{y^{3^{10}}}{3^4}+\frac{y^{3^{13}}}{3^5}\end{aligned}\ .$$ It is for me unclear which is the general shape of the powers. For $F$ we have most upper indices... – dan_fulea May 09 '22 at 13:01
  • ... upper indices $\color{red}{2}$, $5$, $\color{red}{7}$, $10$, and for $G$ at the "same places" the indices $\color{blue}{3}$, $5$, $\color{blue}{8}$, $10$. The series - considering that they involve either $x$-powers or $y$-powers (rapidly) going to infinity - make no sense for values of $x,y$ with $|x|>1$ and/or $|y|>1$. However, a random truncation leads to a polynomial system that may or may not have a solution $\ne (0,0)$. So here are my questions - before starting any further (hard) work on the problem. (1) Which are the power series $F,G$? (2) Where are they defined? ... – dan_fulea May 09 '22 at 13:08
  • ... (3) Why are we interested in solutions for $F=G=0$ ? (4) Why should a "random truncation" - and please use two other letters instead of $F,G$, say $F_1,G_1$, and the solution to $F_1=G_1=0$ - lead to an approximation of a solution for $F=G=0$? – dan_fulea May 09 '22 at 13:11
  • Moreover, please always insert the own effort to solve the problem. As it stays, we have only a(n intentionally made more complicated) question as a follow up for a question. Please understand that there is an amount of work for the given question. It should pay the price for the interest in the question, so please give more details. See also: https://math.stackexchange.com/help/how-to-ask – dan_fulea May 09 '22 at 13:14

2 Answers2

1

I intend to give some glimpses, like the more deteiled one I did here.

Let us consider the minimization problem $$0=g(\textbf{a})=\min_{\textbf{x}\in A}{g(\textbf{x})},\qquad {g(\textbf{x})}=\frac{1}{2}\|{\bf f}({\bf x})\|^2,$$ to some continuously differentiable function $\textbf{f}:A\to \mathbb{R}^p$, where $A$ is an open set of $\mathbb{R}^m$ containing $\textbf{a}$. Now, if you have some differentiable curve $\textbf{u}:(a,b)\to A$, you can apply the chain rule to obtain $$\frac{d\, g({\bf u}(t))}{dt}= \left\langle {\bf u}'(t), \nabla g({\bf u}(t))\right\rangle= \left\langle {\bf u}'(t),[J{\bf f}({\bf u}(t))]^*{\bf f}({\bf u}(t))\right\rangle=\left\langle J{\bf f}({\bf u}(t)){\bf u}'(t),{\bf f}({\bf u}(t))\right\rangle,$$ in which $\langle \cdot,\cdot\rangle$ denotes the inner product.

A natural choice to $u(t)$ is given by the the initial value problem (IVP) $$\left\{\begin{array}{rrrrl}{\bf u}'(t)&=&-\alpha \nabla g({\bf u}(t))\\ {\bf u}(0)&=&{\bf u}_0\end{array}\right.,\tag{1}$$ where $[J{\bf f}({\bf u}(t))]^* {\bf f}({\bf u}(t))=\nabla g({\bf u}(t))$, and $\alpha>0$.

If you use Euler method to solve PVI $(1)$ numerically, you find the gradient descent method.

Another choice is the curve satisfing the initial value problem (IVP) $$\left\{\begin{array}{rrl}J{\bf f}({\bf u}(t)){\bf u}'(t)&=&-\alpha {\bf f}({\bf u}(t))\\ {\bf u}(0)&=&{\bf u}_0\end{array}\right.,\tag{2}$$ to some $\alpha>0$.

In both cases $(1)$ and $(2)$, it follows that, ${g(\textbf{u}}(t))$ is a non increasing function. This also means that, if $g(\textbf{u}(t))> 0$, then $g(\textbf{u}(t+h))<g(\textbf{u}(t))$, when $0<h<h_t$, to some $h_t>0$ close enough to $0$.

If $m=p$ and $J{\bf f}({\bf x})$ has bounded inverse matrix, to all $\textbf{x}\in A$, the IVP $(2)$ becomes
$$\left\{\begin{array}{lll}{\bf u}'(t)&=&-\alpha \left[J{\bf f}({\bf u}(t))\right]^{-1}{\bf f}({\bf u}(t))\\ {\bf u}(0)&=&{\bf u}_0\end{array}\right.,$$ and we can use the Euler method $$\left\{\begin{array}{rll}J{\bf f}({\bf u}_j) {\bf w}_j&=&-\alpha_j {\bf f}({\bf u}_j)\\ {\bf u}_{j+1}&=&{\bf u}_j+{\bf w}_j\end{array}\right.,$$ to solve the previous it numerically, where $\textbf{u}_0=u(0)$, $t_{j+1}=t_j+h_j$, $0<h_j$, ${\bf u}(t_{j+1}) \approx {\bf u}_{j+1}$ and $\alpha_j=\alpha h_j$. This is Newton's method, when $\alpha_j=1$.

We call $\alpha_j$ as the tuning parameter, and you should be carefully to choose it to have $g({\bf u}_{j+1})<g({\bf u}_j)$. Otherwise you can has a "bad" approximation ${\bf u}(t_{j+1}) \approx {\bf u}_{j+1}$ in which $g({\bf u}_{j+1})>g({\bf u}_j)$.

But, when the things works well, $\alpha_j$ can be 1, to $j$ big enough.

You can find many other discussions seraching for "\(x_{n+1}=x_n-\alpha \nabla f(x_n)\)" on SearchOnMath, for instance.

Note: I do not use Sage. So I suggest you change the last line of the code to

v = v - alpha*J.subs({x : a, y : b}).inverse() * vector(IR, 2, [fv, gv])

to some $0<alpha<1$.

  • thanks. So you are suggesting a variable alpha. Your last line suggest to declare a variable alpha in the interval $(0,1)$. I don't know the syntax how to declare or define such variable in the code. Can you modify the code or other way ? – MAS Apr 30 '22 at 22:48
1

By performing the contour plot for some truncated approximations, we can infer for which the NR algorithm will work.

$$ \cases{ x + \frac{y^9}{3}+\frac{x^{243}}{9}=0 \\ y + \frac{x^{27}}{3}+\frac{y^{243}}{9}=0 \\ } $$

Here NR works with one solution.

enter image description here

$$ \cases{ x + \frac{y^9}{3}+\frac{x^{243}}{9} + \frac{y^{2187}}{27}=0 \\ y + \frac{x^{27}}{3}+\frac{y^{243}}{9} + \frac{x^{6561}}{27}=0 \\ } $$

Here NR succeeds with three solutions

enter image description here

$$ \cases{ x + \frac{y^9}{3}+\frac{x^{243}}{9} + \frac{y^{2187}}{27}+\frac{x^{59049}}{81}=0 \\ y + \frac{x^{27}}{3}+\frac{y^{243}}{9} + \frac{x^{6561}}{27}+\frac{y^{59049}}{81}=0 \\ } $$

Here NR only gives one solution. The two contours only cross one time.

enter image description here

In blue $f(x,y) = 0$ and in orange $g(x,y) = 0$

Cesareo
  • 36,341
  • thanks a lot. So besides the trivial zero $(0,0)$, we have the other zero $\approx(1,-1)$ or $\approx(-1,-1)$ or $\approx(-1,1)$. Yes that is also my guess. But how can we show with numerical methods? – MAS Apr 30 '22 at 22:44
  • Once we know a solution neighborhood, we can apply successfully a method like Newton-Raphson's. The result will depend on the approximation... – Cesareo Apr 30 '22 at 22:53
  • I like your ideas. However I tried with Matlab code for N-R but failing to converge. I have asked the question here – MAS Apr 30 '22 at 23:04