Numerical value of Determinant far from what it is supposed to be
$begingroup$
I have a large matrix with numerical components and want to set the determinant to zero using the parameter h (see below). Naively, I would have expected that h sets the determinant to (approximately) zero, which isn't the case. On top of that, the order of applying the rule sol seems to affects the final outcome for a reason to don't see.
My output of the code below is:
{h -> -0.744736 + 4.42008 I}
0.0445865 - 0.0285418 I
0.0545654 - 0.114258 I
I am not familiar with how Mathematica handles floating point numbers so that's probably where my error lies. I have also tried to increase the precision with SetPrecision, but without success.
mat={{0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.35808 -
0.00120116 I) h^2 - (0.49603 - 0.00137214 I) h^3 - (0.11307 -
0.00105331 I) h^4 + (0.249794 - 0.000384238 I) h^5 -
0.39204 h^6, -0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.15528 +
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000353051 - 1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4,
0}, {-0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.6394 -
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (11.3534 -
0.00119507 I) h^2 - (0.484268 - 0.00140481 I) h^3 - (5.0714 -
0.00114074 I) h^4 + (0.27061 - 0.000416258 I) h^5 -
0.42471 h^6, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (4.95742 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000484431 - 2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4}, {(0.0000353051 -
1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (41.4016 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (29.348 -
0.00118803 I) h^2 - (0.470698 - 0.00144251 I) h^3 - (13.9095 -
0.00124106 I) h^4 + (0.294629 - 0.000453204 I) h^5 -
0.462406 h^6, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.0123 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4)}, {0, (0.0000484431 -
2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (71.32 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (55.3462 -
0.00118568 I) h^2 - (0.466163 - 0.0014551 I) h^3 - (26.6556 -
0.00127449 I) h^4 + (0.302655 - 0.000465551 I) h^5 -
0.475003 h^6}};
sol = Part[NSolve[Det[%] == 0, h], 1]
Det[mat /. sol]
Det[mat] /. sol
linear-algebra
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a large matrix with numerical components and want to set the determinant to zero using the parameter h (see below). Naively, I would have expected that h sets the determinant to (approximately) zero, which isn't the case. On top of that, the order of applying the rule sol seems to affects the final outcome for a reason to don't see.
My output of the code below is:
{h -> -0.744736 + 4.42008 I}
0.0445865 - 0.0285418 I
0.0545654 - 0.114258 I
I am not familiar with how Mathematica handles floating point numbers so that's probably where my error lies. I have also tried to increase the precision with SetPrecision, but without success.
mat={{0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.35808 -
0.00120116 I) h^2 - (0.49603 - 0.00137214 I) h^3 - (0.11307 -
0.00105331 I) h^4 + (0.249794 - 0.000384238 I) h^5 -
0.39204 h^6, -0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.15528 +
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000353051 - 1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4,
0}, {-0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.6394 -
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (11.3534 -
0.00119507 I) h^2 - (0.484268 - 0.00140481 I) h^3 - (5.0714 -
0.00114074 I) h^4 + (0.27061 - 0.000416258 I) h^5 -
0.42471 h^6, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (4.95742 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000484431 - 2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4}, {(0.0000353051 -
1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (41.4016 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (29.348 -
0.00118803 I) h^2 - (0.470698 - 0.00144251 I) h^3 - (13.9095 -
0.00124106 I) h^4 + (0.294629 - 0.000453204 I) h^5 -
0.462406 h^6, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.0123 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4)}, {0, (0.0000484431 -
2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (71.32 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (55.3462 -
0.00118568 I) h^2 - (0.466163 - 0.0014551 I) h^3 - (26.6556 -
0.00127449 I) h^4 + (0.302655 - 0.000465551 I) h^5 -
0.475003 h^6}};
sol = Part[NSolve[Det[%] == 0, h], 1]
Det[mat /. sol]
Det[mat] /. sol
linear-algebra
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Correction: I get the output0.118714 - 0.0526506 I(as the second output) and0.106201 - 0.0979004 I(as the third output); sorry, used a different matrix. But the problem still stands.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 10 at 3:30
2
$begingroup$
This looks like a polynomial eigenvalue problem.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 10 at 8:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I have a large matrix with numerical components and want to set the determinant to zero using the parameter h (see below). Naively, I would have expected that h sets the determinant to (approximately) zero, which isn't the case. On top of that, the order of applying the rule sol seems to affects the final outcome for a reason to don't see.
My output of the code below is:
{h -> -0.744736 + 4.42008 I}
0.0445865 - 0.0285418 I
0.0545654 - 0.114258 I
I am not familiar with how Mathematica handles floating point numbers so that's probably where my error lies. I have also tried to increase the precision with SetPrecision, but without success.
mat={{0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.35808 -
0.00120116 I) h^2 - (0.49603 - 0.00137214 I) h^3 - (0.11307 -
0.00105331 I) h^4 + (0.249794 - 0.000384238 I) h^5 -
0.39204 h^6, -0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.15528 +
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000353051 - 1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4,
0}, {-0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.6394 -
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (11.3534 -
0.00119507 I) h^2 - (0.484268 - 0.00140481 I) h^3 - (5.0714 -
0.00114074 I) h^4 + (0.27061 - 0.000416258 I) h^5 -
0.42471 h^6, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (4.95742 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000484431 - 2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4}, {(0.0000353051 -
1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (41.4016 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (29.348 -
0.00118803 I) h^2 - (0.470698 - 0.00144251 I) h^3 - (13.9095 -
0.00124106 I) h^4 + (0.294629 - 0.000453204 I) h^5 -
0.462406 h^6, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.0123 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4)}, {0, (0.0000484431 -
2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (71.32 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (55.3462 -
0.00118568 I) h^2 - (0.466163 - 0.0014551 I) h^3 - (26.6556 -
0.00127449 I) h^4 + (0.302655 - 0.000465551 I) h^5 -
0.475003 h^6}};
sol = Part[NSolve[Det[%] == 0, h], 1]
Det[mat /. sol]
Det[mat] /. sol
linear-algebra
$endgroup$
I have a large matrix with numerical components and want to set the determinant to zero using the parameter h (see below). Naively, I would have expected that h sets the determinant to (approximately) zero, which isn't the case. On top of that, the order of applying the rule sol seems to affects the final outcome for a reason to don't see.
My output of the code below is:
{h -> -0.744736 + 4.42008 I}
0.0445865 - 0.0285418 I
0.0545654 - 0.114258 I
I am not familiar with how Mathematica handles floating point numbers so that's probably where my error lies. I have also tried to increase the precision with SetPrecision, but without success.
mat={{0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.35808 -
0.00120116 I) h^2 - (0.49603 - 0.00137214 I) h^3 - (0.11307 -
0.00105331 I) h^4 + (0.249794 - 0.000384238 I) h^5 -
0.39204 h^6, -0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (1.15528 +
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000353051 - 1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4,
0}, {-0.1711 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.6394 -
0.00267142 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (11.3534 -
0.00119507 I) h^2 - (0.484268 - 0.00140481 I) h^3 - (5.0714 -
0.00114074 I) h^4 + (0.27061 - 0.000416258 I) h^5 -
0.42471 h^6, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (4.95742 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4), (0.0000484431 - 2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4}, {(0.0000353051 -
1.67323*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.223386 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (41.4016 -
0.00267502 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (29.348 -
0.00118803 I) h^2 - (0.470698 - 0.00144251 I) h^3 - (13.9095 -
0.00124106 I) h^4 + (0.294629 - 0.000453204 I) h^5 -
0.462406 h^6, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (19.0123 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 +
1. h^4)}, {0, (0.0000484431 -
2.29589*10^-6 I) h^4, -0.234771 h^2 ((-0.143205 +
0.000186623 I) - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h + (71.32 -
0.00267319 I) h^2 - (0.637164 - 0.0009801 I) h^3 + 1. h^4),
0.16 - (0.36 + 0.001 I) h - (55.3462 -
0.00118568 I) h^2 - (0.466163 - 0.0014551 I) h^3 - (26.6556 -
0.00127449 I) h^4 + (0.302655 - 0.000465551 I) h^5 -
0.475003 h^6}};
sol = Part[NSolve[Det[%] == 0, h], 1]
Det[mat /. sol]
Det[mat] /. sol
linear-algebra
linear-algebra
edited Mar 10 at 6:28
J. M. is away♦
98.9k10311467
98.9k10311467
asked Mar 10 at 3:20
NilsNils
623
623
$begingroup$
Correction: I get the output0.118714 - 0.0526506 I(as the second output) and0.106201 - 0.0979004 I(as the third output); sorry, used a different matrix. But the problem still stands.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 10 at 3:30
2
$begingroup$
This looks like a polynomial eigenvalue problem.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 10 at 8:24
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Correction: I get the output0.118714 - 0.0526506 I(as the second output) and0.106201 - 0.0979004 I(as the third output); sorry, used a different matrix. But the problem still stands.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 10 at 3:30
2
$begingroup$
This looks like a polynomial eigenvalue problem.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 10 at 8:24
$begingroup$
Correction: I get the output
0.118714 - 0.0526506 I (as the second output) and 0.106201 - 0.0979004 I (as the third output); sorry, used a different matrix. But the problem still stands.$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 10 at 3:30
$begingroup$
Correction: I get the output
0.118714 - 0.0526506 I (as the second output) and 0.106201 - 0.0979004 I (as the third output); sorry, used a different matrix. But the problem still stands.$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 10 at 3:30
2
2
$begingroup$
This looks like a polynomial eigenvalue problem.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 10 at 8:24
$begingroup$
This looks like a polynomial eigenvalue problem.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 10 at 8:24
add a comment |
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As you suspected when you mentioned SetPrecision, you are encountering numerical errors, probably catastrophic loss of precision when calculating the determinant; your calculations do in fact need to be carried out at higher precision.
If possible, you would want to use exact numbers in your matrix, or take advantage of the arbitrary-precision capabilities of Mathematica. For instance, we can convert all machine-precision numbers to arbitrary-precision ones with a number of digits of precision equal to that of common machine-precision numbers on your machine using SetPrecision (see also $MachinePrecision in the documentation):
det = Det[SetPrecision[mat, $MachinePrecision]];
sol = NSolve[det == 0, h];
det /. sol // PossibleZeroQ
(* Out:
{True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True}
*)
As you can see, all those values of $h$ do bring your determinant reasonably close to zero, within machine-precision approximations.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As already noted, this is a polynomial eigenproblem. First, let's use SeriesCoefficient to extract the coefficient matrices of your $h$-matrix:
coeffs = Table[SeriesCoefficient[mat, {h, 0, k}], {k, Max[Exponent[mat, h]], 0, -1}];
You can then use PolynomialEigenvalues to find the eigenvalues of your $h$-matrix:
eigs = PolynomialEigenvalues[coeffs];
To check the eigenvalues returned:
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

and we see that the small eigenvalues are computed accurately, but the large eigenvalues are not. (Why this is so, I still have to do some research on.)
So, as a sanity check, let us compute the eigenvalues a little differently:
eigs2 = Reverse[1/PolynomialEigenvalues[Reverse[coeffs]]];
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(Hopefully, when I can get my computer fixed, I'll be able to devote more time on this and other problems!)
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 11 at 6:43
$begingroup$
Thanks, that's very useful! Though, does this imply that I can't assume the first few solutions actually solve the problem with reasonable accuracy?
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 3:00
$begingroup$
@Nils, yes, for some reason (which I still need to do further research on), the large eigenvalues are not being computed accurately by both procedures (i.e. the normal one and the one with reversed coefficients). But, let me suggest an experiment for you to try while I'm not at a computer: evaluatemh = Map[HornerForm, mat, {2}], and then try bothListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]andListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All].
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 3:09
$begingroup$
The problem seems to be numerically unstable, as the characteristic polynomial has reasonably large order. Hence, one subtracts two relatively large numerical values, which results in a loss of precision especially for large roots. I will try to find the roots by searching for local minima of the characteristic polynomial and see what happens.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@Nils, James Wilkinson has long warned about ever trying to do numerical stuff involving the characteristic polynomial, so a direct expansion into coefficients is out.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 22:20
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ready(function() {
var channelOptions = {
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "387"
};
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
createEditor();
});
}
else {
createEditor();
}
});
function createEditor() {
StackExchange.prepareEditor({
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: false,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: null,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader: {
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
},
onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
});
}
});
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192970%2fnumerical-value-of-determinant-far-from-what-it-is-supposed-to-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
As you suspected when you mentioned SetPrecision, you are encountering numerical errors, probably catastrophic loss of precision when calculating the determinant; your calculations do in fact need to be carried out at higher precision.
If possible, you would want to use exact numbers in your matrix, or take advantage of the arbitrary-precision capabilities of Mathematica. For instance, we can convert all machine-precision numbers to arbitrary-precision ones with a number of digits of precision equal to that of common machine-precision numbers on your machine using SetPrecision (see also $MachinePrecision in the documentation):
det = Det[SetPrecision[mat, $MachinePrecision]];
sol = NSolve[det == 0, h];
det /. sol // PossibleZeroQ
(* Out:
{True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True}
*)
As you can see, all those values of $h$ do bring your determinant reasonably close to zero, within machine-precision approximations.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As you suspected when you mentioned SetPrecision, you are encountering numerical errors, probably catastrophic loss of precision when calculating the determinant; your calculations do in fact need to be carried out at higher precision.
If possible, you would want to use exact numbers in your matrix, or take advantage of the arbitrary-precision capabilities of Mathematica. For instance, we can convert all machine-precision numbers to arbitrary-precision ones with a number of digits of precision equal to that of common machine-precision numbers on your machine using SetPrecision (see also $MachinePrecision in the documentation):
det = Det[SetPrecision[mat, $MachinePrecision]];
sol = NSolve[det == 0, h];
det /. sol // PossibleZeroQ
(* Out:
{True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True}
*)
As you can see, all those values of $h$ do bring your determinant reasonably close to zero, within machine-precision approximations.
$endgroup$
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As you suspected when you mentioned SetPrecision, you are encountering numerical errors, probably catastrophic loss of precision when calculating the determinant; your calculations do in fact need to be carried out at higher precision.
If possible, you would want to use exact numbers in your matrix, or take advantage of the arbitrary-precision capabilities of Mathematica. For instance, we can convert all machine-precision numbers to arbitrary-precision ones with a number of digits of precision equal to that of common machine-precision numbers on your machine using SetPrecision (see also $MachinePrecision in the documentation):
det = Det[SetPrecision[mat, $MachinePrecision]];
sol = NSolve[det == 0, h];
det /. sol // PossibleZeroQ
(* Out:
{True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True}
*)
As you can see, all those values of $h$ do bring your determinant reasonably close to zero, within machine-precision approximations.
$endgroup$
As you suspected when you mentioned SetPrecision, you are encountering numerical errors, probably catastrophic loss of precision when calculating the determinant; your calculations do in fact need to be carried out at higher precision.
If possible, you would want to use exact numbers in your matrix, or take advantage of the arbitrary-precision capabilities of Mathematica. For instance, we can convert all machine-precision numbers to arbitrary-precision ones with a number of digits of precision equal to that of common machine-precision numbers on your machine using SetPrecision (see also $MachinePrecision in the documentation):
det = Det[SetPrecision[mat, $MachinePrecision]];
sol = NSolve[det == 0, h];
det /. sol // PossibleZeroQ
(* Out:
{True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True, True,
True, True}
*)
As you can see, all those values of $h$ do bring your determinant reasonably close to zero, within machine-precision approximations.
edited Mar 10 at 3:39
answered Mar 10 at 3:33
MarcoBMarcoB
38.7k557116
38.7k557116
add a comment |
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As already noted, this is a polynomial eigenproblem. First, let's use SeriesCoefficient to extract the coefficient matrices of your $h$-matrix:
coeffs = Table[SeriesCoefficient[mat, {h, 0, k}], {k, Max[Exponent[mat, h]], 0, -1}];
You can then use PolynomialEigenvalues to find the eigenvalues of your $h$-matrix:
eigs = PolynomialEigenvalues[coeffs];
To check the eigenvalues returned:
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

and we see that the small eigenvalues are computed accurately, but the large eigenvalues are not. (Why this is so, I still have to do some research on.)
So, as a sanity check, let us compute the eigenvalues a little differently:
eigs2 = Reverse[1/PolynomialEigenvalues[Reverse[coeffs]]];
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(Hopefully, when I can get my computer fixed, I'll be able to devote more time on this and other problems!)
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 11 at 6:43
$begingroup$
Thanks, that's very useful! Though, does this imply that I can't assume the first few solutions actually solve the problem with reasonable accuracy?
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 3:00
$begingroup$
@Nils, yes, for some reason (which I still need to do further research on), the large eigenvalues are not being computed accurately by both procedures (i.e. the normal one and the one with reversed coefficients). But, let me suggest an experiment for you to try while I'm not at a computer: evaluatemh = Map[HornerForm, mat, {2}], and then try bothListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]andListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All].
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 3:09
$begingroup$
The problem seems to be numerically unstable, as the characteristic polynomial has reasonably large order. Hence, one subtracts two relatively large numerical values, which results in a loss of precision especially for large roots. I will try to find the roots by searching for local minima of the characteristic polynomial and see what happens.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@Nils, James Wilkinson has long warned about ever trying to do numerical stuff involving the characteristic polynomial, so a direct expansion into coefficients is out.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 22:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As already noted, this is a polynomial eigenproblem. First, let's use SeriesCoefficient to extract the coefficient matrices of your $h$-matrix:
coeffs = Table[SeriesCoefficient[mat, {h, 0, k}], {k, Max[Exponent[mat, h]], 0, -1}];
You can then use PolynomialEigenvalues to find the eigenvalues of your $h$-matrix:
eigs = PolynomialEigenvalues[coeffs];
To check the eigenvalues returned:
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

and we see that the small eigenvalues are computed accurately, but the large eigenvalues are not. (Why this is so, I still have to do some research on.)
So, as a sanity check, let us compute the eigenvalues a little differently:
eigs2 = Reverse[1/PolynomialEigenvalues[Reverse[coeffs]]];
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

$endgroup$
1
$begingroup$
(Hopefully, when I can get my computer fixed, I'll be able to devote more time on this and other problems!)
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 11 at 6:43
$begingroup$
Thanks, that's very useful! Though, does this imply that I can't assume the first few solutions actually solve the problem with reasonable accuracy?
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 3:00
$begingroup$
@Nils, yes, for some reason (which I still need to do further research on), the large eigenvalues are not being computed accurately by both procedures (i.e. the normal one and the one with reversed coefficients). But, let me suggest an experiment for you to try while I'm not at a computer: evaluatemh = Map[HornerForm, mat, {2}], and then try bothListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]andListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All].
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 3:09
$begingroup$
The problem seems to be numerically unstable, as the characteristic polynomial has reasonably large order. Hence, one subtracts two relatively large numerical values, which results in a loss of precision especially for large roots. I will try to find the roots by searching for local minima of the characteristic polynomial and see what happens.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@Nils, James Wilkinson has long warned about ever trying to do numerical stuff involving the characteristic polynomial, so a direct expansion into coefficients is out.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 22:20
add a comment |
$begingroup$
As already noted, this is a polynomial eigenproblem. First, let's use SeriesCoefficient to extract the coefficient matrices of your $h$-matrix:
coeffs = Table[SeriesCoefficient[mat, {h, 0, k}], {k, Max[Exponent[mat, h]], 0, -1}];
You can then use PolynomialEigenvalues to find the eigenvalues of your $h$-matrix:
eigs = PolynomialEigenvalues[coeffs];
To check the eigenvalues returned:
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

and we see that the small eigenvalues are computed accurately, but the large eigenvalues are not. (Why this is so, I still have to do some research on.)
So, as a sanity check, let us compute the eigenvalues a little differently:
eigs2 = Reverse[1/PolynomialEigenvalues[Reverse[coeffs]]];
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

$endgroup$
As already noted, this is a polynomial eigenproblem. First, let's use SeriesCoefficient to extract the coefficient matrices of your $h$-matrix:
coeffs = Table[SeriesCoefficient[mat, {h, 0, k}], {k, Max[Exponent[mat, h]], 0, -1}];
You can then use PolynomialEigenvalues to find the eigenvalues of your $h$-matrix:
eigs = PolynomialEigenvalues[coeffs];
To check the eigenvalues returned:
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

and we see that the small eigenvalues are computed accurately, but the large eigenvalues are not. (Why this is so, I still have to do some research on.)
So, as a sanity check, let us compute the eigenvalues a little differently:
eigs2 = Reverse[1/PolynomialEigenvalues[Reverse[coeffs]]];
ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mat /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]],
Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]

answered Mar 11 at 6:42
J. M. is away♦J. M. is away
98.9k10311467
98.9k10311467
1
$begingroup$
(Hopefully, when I can get my computer fixed, I'll be able to devote more time on this and other problems!)
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 11 at 6:43
$begingroup$
Thanks, that's very useful! Though, does this imply that I can't assume the first few solutions actually solve the problem with reasonable accuracy?
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 3:00
$begingroup$
@Nils, yes, for some reason (which I still need to do further research on), the large eigenvalues are not being computed accurately by both procedures (i.e. the normal one and the one with reversed coefficients). But, let me suggest an experiment for you to try while I'm not at a computer: evaluatemh = Map[HornerForm, mat, {2}], and then try bothListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]andListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All].
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 3:09
$begingroup$
The problem seems to be numerically unstable, as the characteristic polynomial has reasonably large order. Hence, one subtracts two relatively large numerical values, which results in a loss of precision especially for large roots. I will try to find the roots by searching for local minima of the characteristic polynomial and see what happens.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@Nils, James Wilkinson has long warned about ever trying to do numerical stuff involving the characteristic polynomial, so a direct expansion into coefficients is out.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 22:20
add a comment |
1
$begingroup$
(Hopefully, when I can get my computer fixed, I'll be able to devote more time on this and other problems!)
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 11 at 6:43
$begingroup$
Thanks, that's very useful! Though, does this imply that I can't assume the first few solutions actually solve the problem with reasonable accuracy?
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 3:00
$begingroup$
@Nils, yes, for some reason (which I still need to do further research on), the large eigenvalues are not being computed accurately by both procedures (i.e. the normal one and the one with reversed coefficients). But, let me suggest an experiment for you to try while I'm not at a computer: evaluatemh = Map[HornerForm, mat, {2}], and then try bothListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All]andListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All].
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 3:09
$begingroup$
The problem seems to be numerically unstable, as the characteristic polynomial has reasonably large order. Hence, one subtracts two relatively large numerical values, which results in a loss of precision especially for large roots. I will try to find the roots by searching for local minima of the characteristic polynomial and see what happens.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@Nils, James Wilkinson has long warned about ever trying to do numerical stuff involving the characteristic polynomial, so a direct expansion into coefficients is out.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 22:20
1
1
$begingroup$
(Hopefully, when I can get my computer fixed, I'll be able to devote more time on this and other problems!)
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 11 at 6:43
$begingroup$
(Hopefully, when I can get my computer fixed, I'll be able to devote more time on this and other problems!)
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 11 at 6:43
$begingroup$
Thanks, that's very useful! Though, does this imply that I can't assume the first few solutions actually solve the problem with reasonable accuracy?
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 3:00
$begingroup$
Thanks, that's very useful! Though, does this imply that I can't assume the first few solutions actually solve the problem with reasonable accuracy?
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 3:00
$begingroup$
@Nils, yes, for some reason (which I still need to do further research on), the large eigenvalues are not being computed accurately by both procedures (i.e. the normal one and the one with reversed coefficients). But, let me suggest an experiment for you to try while I'm not at a computer: evaluate
mh = Map[HornerForm, mat, {2}], and then try both ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All] and ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All].$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 3:09
$begingroup$
@Nils, yes, for some reason (which I still need to do further research on), the large eigenvalues are not being computed accurately by both procedures (i.e. the normal one and the one with reversed coefficients). But, let me suggest an experiment for you to try while I'm not at a computer: evaluate
mh = Map[HornerForm, mat, {2}], and then try both ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All] and ListLinePlot[Log10[Abs[Det[mh /. h -> #] & /@ eigs2]], Axes -> None, Frame -> True, PlotRange -> All].$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 3:09
$begingroup$
The problem seems to be numerically unstable, as the characteristic polynomial has reasonably large order. Hence, one subtracts two relatively large numerical values, which results in a loss of precision especially for large roots. I will try to find the roots by searching for local minima of the characteristic polynomial and see what happens.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 15:20
$begingroup$
The problem seems to be numerically unstable, as the characteristic polynomial has reasonably large order. Hence, one subtracts two relatively large numerical values, which results in a loss of precision especially for large roots. I will try to find the roots by searching for local minima of the characteristic polynomial and see what happens.
$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 12 at 15:20
$begingroup$
@Nils, James Wilkinson has long warned about ever trying to do numerical stuff involving the characteristic polynomial, so a direct expansion into coefficients is out.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 22:20
$begingroup$
@Nils, James Wilkinson has long warned about ever trying to do numerical stuff involving the characteristic polynomial, so a direct expansion into coefficients is out.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 12 at 22:20
add a comment |
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function () {
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f192970%2fnumerical-value-of-determinant-far-from-what-it-is-supposed-to-be%23new-answer', 'question_page');
}
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function () {
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
});
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
$begingroup$
Correction: I get the output
0.118714 - 0.0526506 I(as the second output) and0.106201 - 0.0979004 I(as the third output); sorry, used a different matrix. But the problem still stands.$endgroup$
– Nils
Mar 10 at 3:30
2
$begingroup$
This looks like a polynomial eigenvalue problem.
$endgroup$
– J. M. is away♦
Mar 10 at 8:24