Home/ Questions/Q 6075603
In Process

The Archive Base Latest Questions

Editorial Team
  • 0
Asked: 2026-05-23T10:30:47+00:00

I came across some weird behaviour when using GroebnerBasis . In m1 below, I

  • 0

I came across some weird behaviour when using GroebnerBasis. In m1 below, I used a Greek letter as my variable and in m2, I used a Latin letter. Both of them have no rules associated with them. Why do I get vastly different answers depending on what variable I choose?

Image:

enter image description here

Copyable code:

Clear["Global`*"]
g = Module[{x}, 
    x /. Solve[
      z - x (1 - b - 
           b x ( (a (3 - 2 a (1 + x)))/(1 - 3 a x + 2 a^2 x^2))) == 0,
       x]][[3]];
m1 = First@GroebnerBasis[\[Kappa] - g, z]
m2 = First@GroebnerBasis[k - g, z]

EDIT:

As pointed out by belisarius, my usage of GroebnerBasis is not entirely correct as it requires a polynomial input, whereas mine is not. This error, introduced by a copy-pasta, went unnoticed until now, as I was getting the answer that I expected when I followed through with the rest of my code using m1 from above. However, I’m not fully convinced that it is an unreasonable usage. Consider the example below:

x = (-b+Sqrt[b^2-4 a c])/2a;
p = First@GroebnerBasis[k - x,{a,b,c}]; (*get relation or cover for Riemann surface*)
q = First@GroebnerBasis[{D[p,k] == 0, p == 0},{a,b,c},k,
    MonomialOrder -> EliminationOrder]; 

Solve[q==0, b] (*get condition on b for double root or branch point*) 

{{b -> -2 Sqrt[a] Sqrt[c]}, {b -> 2 Sqrt[a] Sqrt[c]}}

which is correct. So my interpretation is that it is OK to use GroebnerBasis in such cases, but I’m not all too familiar with the deep theory behind it, so I could be completely wrong here.

P.S. I heard that if you mention GroebnerBasis three times in your post, Daniel Lichtblau will answer your question 🙂

Share

Leave an answer

You must login to add an answer.

Need An Account,

1 Answer

  1. Editorial Team

    The bug that was shown by these examples will be fixed in version 9. Offhand I do not know how to evade it in versions 8 and prior. If I recall correctly it was caused by an intermediate numeric overflow in some code that was checking whether a symbolic polynomial coefficient might be zero.

    For some purposes it might be suitable to specify more variables and possibly a non-default term order. Also clearing denominators can be helpful at least in cases where that is a valid thing to do. That said, I do not know if these tactics would help in this example.

    I’ll look some more at this code but probably not in the near future.

    Daniel Lichtblau

    • 0