Seeking Insights into a Novel Approach for Factoring?

Ask a Question

Create a Post

Question:Seeking Insights into a Novel Approach for Factoring?

Posted: salim-barzani 655 Product: Maple 2024

December 30 2024

I’ve spent considerable effort trying to understand how the solution was derived, particularly the approach involving the factoring of G′/G. Despite my attempts, the methodology remains elusive. It seems there’s an innovative idea at play here—something beyond the techniques we’ve applied in similar problems before. While I suspect it involves a novel perspective, I can’t quite pinpoint what it might be.

If anyone has insights into how this factoring is achieved or can shed light on the underlying idea, I’d greatly appreciate your help.

(1)

Warning, A new binding for the name `gamma` has been created. The global instance of this name is still accessible using the :- prefix, :-`gamma`. See ?protect for details.

(2)

(3)

F := sum(c[i]*(m+(diff(G(xi), xi))/G(xi))^i, i = -1 .. 1)

c[-1]/(m+(diff(G(xi), xi))/G(xi))+c[0]+c[1]*(m+(diff(G(xi), xi))/G(xi))

(4)

-c[-1]*((diff(diff(G(xi), xi), xi))/G(xi)-(diff(G(xi), xi))^2/G(xi)^2)/(m+(diff(G(xi), xi))/G(xi))^2+c[1]*((diff(diff(G(xi), xi), xi))/G(xi)-(diff(G(xi), xi))^2/G(xi)^2)

(5)

(6)

-c[-1]*((-(2*m*mu+lambda)*(diff(G(xi), xi))-mu)/G(xi)-(diff(G(xi), xi))^2/G(xi)^2)/(m+(diff(G(xi), xi))/G(xi))^2+c[1]*((-(2*m*mu+lambda)*(diff(G(xi), xi))-mu)/G(xi)-(diff(G(xi), xi))^2/G(xi)^2)

(7)

(8)

(9)

(10)

(11)

(12)

NULL

>	# rewritting rule RR := isolate(m+diff(G(xi), xi)/(G(xi))=Phi, diff(G(xi), xi)/G(xi));

(diff(G(xi), xi))/G(xi) = Phi-m

(13)

>	# Apply RR and collect wrt Phi subs(RR, L): normal(%): PhiN := collect(numer(lhs(%)), phi): PhiD := denom(lhs(%%));

(14)

>	with(LargeExpressions): LLE := collect(PhiN, Phi, Veil[phi] ): LLE / PhiD = 0;

(Phi^6*phi[1]+3*Phi^5*phi[2]-Phi^4*phi[3]-Phi^3*phi[4]-Phi^2*phi[5]+Phi*phi[6]-phi[7])/(Phi^3*G(xi)^4) = 0

(15)

>	# phi[i] coefficients phis := [ seq( phi[i] = simplify(Unveil[phi](phi[i]), size), i=1..LastUsed[phi] ) ]: print~( phis ):

phi[3] = -3*G(xi)^4*c[1]*(-(1/3)*a[1]*k^2+(-c[-1]*(gamma-sigma)*c[1]+(-gamma+sigma)*c[0]^2+(1/3)*w*a[2]-(1/3)*alpha)*k+b*c[-1]*c[1]+b*c[0]^2-(1/3)*w)

phi[4] = G(xi)*(2*c[1]*(V*a[2]-a[1])*(diff(G(xi), xi))^3+3*c[1]*G(xi)*(2*m*mu+lambda)*(V*a[2]-a[1])*(diff(G(xi), xi))^2+((2*m*mu+lambda)^2*G(xi)+3*mu)*(V*a[2]-a[1])*G(xi)*c[1]*(diff(G(xi), xi))+G(xi)^2*(-c[0]*(6*c[-1]*((-gamma+sigma)*k+b)*c[1]-a[1]*k^2+k*w*a[2]+((-gamma+sigma)*k+b)*c[0]^2-k*alpha-w)*G(xi)+c[1]*mu*(2*m*mu+lambda)*(V*a[2]-a[1])))

phi[5] = -3*G(xi)^4*(-(1/3)*a[1]*k^2+(-c[-1]*(gamma-sigma)*c[1]+(-gamma+sigma)*c[0]^2+(1/3)*w*a[2]-(1/3)*alpha)*k+b*c[-1]*c[1]+b*c[0]^2-(1/3)*w)*c[-1]

phi[6] = 4*c[-1]*((1/2)*(V*a[2]-a[1])*(diff(G(xi), xi))^3+(3/2)*(m*mu+(1/2)*lambda)*(V*a[2]-a[1])*G(xi)*(diff(G(xi), xi))^2+(V*a[2]-a[1])*((m*mu+(1/2)*lambda)^2*G(xi)+(3/4)*mu)*G(xi)*(diff(G(xi), xi))+(1/2)*G(xi)^2*((3/2)*c[-1]*((-gamma+sigma)*k+b)*c[0]*G(xi)+(m*mu+(1/2)*lambda)*(V*a[2]-a[1])*mu))*G(xi)

phi[7] = 8*((1/4)*(V*a[2]-a[1])*(diff(G(xi), xi))^4+(V*a[2]-a[1])*G(xi)*(m*mu+(1/2)*lambda)*(diff(G(xi), xi))^3+(V*a[2]-a[1])*G(xi)*((m*mu+(1/2)*lambda)^2*G(xi)+(1/2)*mu)*(diff(G(xi), xi))^2+(V*a[2]-a[1])*G(xi)^2*(m*mu+(1/2)*lambda)*mu*(diff(G(xi), xi))+(1/4)*G(xi)^2*(-(1/2)*((-gamma+sigma)*k+b)*c[-1]^2*G(xi)^2+mu^2*(V*a[2]-a[1])))*c[-1]

(16)

>	# WATCHOUT: you have 9 coefficients and so its desirable to have the same number of unknowns unknowns := indets(rhs~(phis), name); COEFFS := solve(rhs~(phis), unknowns)

Error, (in solve) cannot solve expressions with diff(G(xi),xi) for xi

>	case1 := COEFFS[4]

${alpha = alpha, beta = gamma, delta = delta, gamma = gamma, k = k, lambda = 0, m = 2*n, mu = mu, n = n, sigma = 32*alpha*mu^2*n^4/a[-1]^2, w = -2*alpha*k^2*n-4*alpha*mu^2*n+delta^2, a[-1] = a[-1], a[0] = 0, a[1] = 0}$

(17)

a[-1]/(2*n+1/(diff(G(xi), xi)))

(18)

128*V(xi)^4*n^6*alpha*mu^2/a[-1]^2+(16*alpha*k^2*n^4-8*delta^2*n^3+8*n^3*(-2*alpha*k^2*n-4*alpha*mu^2*n+delta^2))*V(xi)^2-4*V(xi)*(diff(diff(V(xi), xi), xi))*alpha*n^2 = 0