Logo Questions Linux Laravel Mysql Ubuntu Git Menu
 

Solving vector equations in Mathematica

I'm trying to figure out how to use Mathematica to solve systems of equations where some of the variables and coefficients are vectors. A simple example would be something like

A + Vt = Pt

where I know A, V, and the magnitude of P, and I have to solve for t and the direction of P. (Basically, given two rays A and B, where I know everything about A but only the origin and magnitude of B, figure out what the direction of B must be such that it intersects A.)

Now, I know how to solve this sort of thing by hand, but that's slow and error-prone, so I was hoping I could use Mathematica to speed things along and error-check me. However, I can't see how to get Mathematica to symbolically solve equations involving vectors like this.

I've looked in the VectorAnalysis package, without finding anything there that seems relevant; meanwhile the Linear Algebra package only seems to have a solver for linear systems (which this isn't, since I don't know t or P, just |P|).

I tried doing the simpleminded thing: expanding the vectors into their components (pretend they're 3D) and solving them as if I were trying to equate two parametric functions,

Solve[ 
      { Function[t, {Bx + Vx*t, By + Vy*t, Bz + Vz*t}][t] == 
          Function[t, {Px*t, Py*t, Pz*t}][t],
        Px^2 + Py^2 + Pz^2 == Q^2 } , 
      { t, Px, Py, Pz } 
     ]

but the "solution" that spits out is a huge mess of coefficients and congestion. It also forces me to expand out each of the dimensions I feed it.

What I want is a nice symbolic solution in terms of dot products, cross products, and norms:

alt text

But I can't see how to tell Solve that some of the coefficients are vectors instead of scalars.

Is this possible? Can Mathematica give me symbolic solutions on vectors? Or should I just stick with No.2 Pencil technology?

(Just to be clear, I'm not interested in the solution to the particular equation at top -- I'm asking if I can use Mathematica to solve computational geometry problems like that generally without my having to express everything as an explicit matrix of {Ax, Ay, Az}, etc.)

like image 676
Crashworks Avatar asked Jan 21 '10 04:01

Crashworks


3 Answers


With Mathematica 7.0.1.0

Clear[A, V, P];
A = {1, 2, 3};
V = {4, 5, 6};
P = {P1, P2, P3};
Solve[A + V t == P, P]

outputs:

{{P1 -> 1 + 4 t, P2 -> 2 + 5 t, P3 -> 3 (1 + 2 t)}}

Typing out P = {P1, P2, P3} can be annoying if the array or matrix is large.

Clear[A, V, PP, P];
A = {1, 2, 3};
V = {4, 5, 6};
PP = Array[P, 3];
Solve[A + V t == PP, PP]

outputs:

{{P[1] -> 1 + 4 t, P[2] -> 2 + 5 t, P[3] -> 3 (1 + 2 t)}}

Matrix vector inner product:

Clear[A, xx, bb];
A = {{1, 5}, {6, 7}};
xx = Array[x, 2];
bb = Array[b, 2];
Solve[A.xx == bb, xx]

outputs:

{{x[1] -> 1/23 (-7 b[1] + 5 b[2]), x[2] -> 1/23 (6 b[1] - b[2])}}

Matrix multiplication:

Clear[A, BB, d];
A = {{1, 5}, {6, 7}};
BB = Array[B, {2, 2}];
d = {{6, 7}, {8, 9}};
Solve[A.BB == d]

outputs:

{{B[1, 1] -> -(2/23), B[2, 1] -> 28/23, B[1, 2] -> -(4/23), B[2, 2] -> 33/23}}

The dot product has an infix notation built in just use a period for the dot.

I do not think the cross product does however. This is how you use the Notation package to make one. "X" will become our infix form of Cross. I suggest coping the example from the Notation, Symbolize and InfixNotation tutorial. Also use the Notation Palette which helps abstract away some of the Box syntax.

Clear[X]
Needs["Notation`"]
Notation[x_ X y_\[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]Cross[x_, y_]]
Notation[NotationTemplateTag[
  RowBox[{x_,  , X,  , y_,  }]] \[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow] 
  NotationTemplateTag[RowBox[{ , 
RowBox[{Cross, [, 
RowBox[{x_, ,, y_}], ]}]}]]]
{a, b, c} X {x, y, z}

outputs:

{-c y + b z, c x - a z, -b x + a y}

The above looks horrible but when using the Notation Palette it looks like:

Clear[X]
Needs["Notation`"]
Notation[x_ X y_\[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]Cross[x_, y_]]
{a, b, c} X {x, y, z}

I have run into some quirks using the notation package in the past versions of mathematica so be careful.

like image 160
Davorak Avatar answered Nov 29 '22 18:11

Davorak


I don't have a general solution for you by any means (MathForum may be the better way to go), but there are some tips that I can offer you. The first is to do the expansion of your vectors into components in a more systematic way. For instance, I would solve the equation you wrote as follows.

rawSol = With[{coords = {x, y, z}},
  Solve[
    Flatten[
     {A[#] + V[#] t == P[#] t & /@ coords,
     Total[P[#]^2 & /@ coords] == P^2}],
    Flatten[{t, P /@ coords}]]];

Then you can work with the rawSol variable more easily. Next, because you are referring the vector components in a uniform way (always matching the Mathematica pattern v_[x|y|z]), you can define rules that will aid in simplifying them. I played around a bit before coming up with the following rules:

vectorRules =
  {forms___ + vec_[x]^2 + vec_[y]^2 + vec_[z]^2 :> forms + vec^2,
   forms___ + c_. v1_[x]*v2_[x] + c_. v1_[y]*v2_[y] + c_. v1_[z]*v2_[z] :>
     forms + c v1\[CenterDot]v2};

These rules will simplify the relationships for vector norms and dot products (cross-products are left as a likely painful exercise for the reader). EDIT: rcollyer pointed out that you can make c optional in the rule for dot products, so you only need two rules for norms and dot products.

With these rules, I was immediately able to simplify the solution for t into a form very close to yours:

  In[3] := t /. rawSol //. vectorRules // Simplify // InputForm
  Out[3] = {(A \[CenterDot] V - Sqrt[A^2*(P^2 - V^2) + 
                                   (A \[CenterDot] V)^2])/(P^2 - V^2), 
            (A \[CenterDot] V + Sqrt[A^2*(P^2 - V^2) + 
                                   (A \[CenterDot] V)^2])/(P^2 - V^2)}

Like I said, it's not a complete way of solving these kinds of problems by any means, but if you're careful about casting the problem into terms that are easy to work with from a pattern-matching and rule-replacement standpoint, you can go pretty far.

like image 28
Pillsy Avatar answered Nov 29 '22 20:11

Pillsy


I've taken a somewhat different approach to this issue. I've made some definitions that return this output: vExpand examples Patterns that are known to be vector quantities may be specified using vec[_], patterns that have an OverVector[] or OverHat[] wrapper (symbols with a vector or hat over them) are assumed to be vectors by default.

The definitions are experimental and should be treated as such, but they seem to work well. I expect to add to this over time.

Here are the definitions. The need to be pasted into a Mathematica Notebook cell and converted to StandardForm to see them properly.

Unprotect[vExpand,vExpand$,Cross,Plus,Times,CenterDot];

(* vec[pat] determines if pat is a vector quantity.
vec[pat] can be used to define patterns that should be treated as vectors.
Default: Patterns are assumed to be scalar unless otherwise defined *)
vec[_]:=False;

(* Symbols with a vector hat, or vector operations on vectors are assumed to be vectors *)
vec[OverVector[_]]:=True;
vec[OverHat[_]]:=True;

vec[u_?vec+v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?vec-v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?vec\[Cross]v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?VectorQ]:=True;

(* Placeholder for matrix types *)
mat[a_]:=False;

(* Anything not defined as a vector or matrix is a scalar *)
scal[x_]:=!(vec[x]\[Or]mat[x]);
scal[x_?scal+y_?scal]:=True;scal[x_?scal y_?scal]:=True;

(* Scalars times vectors are vectors *)
vec[a_?scal u_?vec]:=True;
mat[a_?scal m_?mat]:=True;

vExpand$[u_?vec\[Cross](v_?vec+w_?vec)]:=vExpand$[u\[Cross]v]+vExpand$[u\[Cross]w];
vExpand$[(u_?vec+v_?vec)\[Cross]w_?vec]:=vExpand$[u\[Cross]w]+vExpand$[v\[Cross]w];
vExpand$[u_?vec\[CenterDot](v_?vec+w_?vec)]:=vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]v]+vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]w];
vExpand$[(u_?vec+v_?vec)\[CenterDot]w_?vec]:=vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]w]+vExpand$[v\[CenterDot]w];

vExpand$[s_?scal (u_?vec\[Cross]v_?vec)]:=Expand[s] vExpand$[u\[Cross]v];
vExpand$[s_?scal (u_?vec\[CenterDot]v_?vec)]:=Expand[s] vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]v];

vExpand$[Plus[x__]]:=vExpand$/@Plus[x];
vExpand$[s_?scal,Plus[x__]]:=Expand[s](vExpand$/@Plus[x]);
vExpand$[Times[x__]]:=vExpand$/@Times[x];

vExpand[e_]:=e//.e:>Expand[vExpand$[e]]

(* Some simplification rules *)
(u_?vec\[Cross]u_?vec):=\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\);
(u_?vec+\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\)):=u;
0v_?vec:=\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\);

\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\)\[CenterDot]v_?vec:=0;
v_?vec\[CenterDot]\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\):=0;

(a_?scal u_?vec)\[Cross]v_?vec :=a u\[Cross]v;u_?vec\[Cross](a_?scal v_?vec ):=a u\[Cross]v;
(a_?scal u_?vec)\[CenterDot]v_?vec :=a u\[CenterDot]v;
u_?vec\[CenterDot](a_?scal v_?vec) :=a u\[CenterDot]v;

(* Stealing behavior from Dot *)
Attributes[CenterDot]=Attributes[Dot];

Protect[vExpand,vExpand$,Cross,Plus,Times,CenterDot];
like image 37
Codie CodeMonkey Avatar answered Nov 29 '22 18:11

Codie CodeMonkey