How to decompose the following expression?

  • Thread starter Alec V
  • Start date
  • Tags
    Expression
In summary: So by definition, we have ( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) = ( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) \ + \ L .
  • #1
Alec V
4
0
This comes from one of the research papers that I'm reading. The authors decompose Eq. 1 and obtain Eq. 2. After several attempts, I have been fairly unsuccessful at obtaining Eq. 2 from Eq. 1.

I have tried using partial fractions decomposition without much success. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Eq. 1


20-%20%5Cfrac%7B%5Cprod_%7Bs2%7D%20%7D%7B1-%5Cdelta%20+%5Cdelta%20%5Cepsilon%20_%7Bs2%7D%7D.gif


Eq. 2

gif.gif
Thanks!


 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Try to find the other direction, that is easier (and all steps work both ways). You can simplify equation 2 and get equation 1.
 
  • #3
Alec V said:
Eq. 2

gif.gif


You have to explain the relations that exist among the symbols to get help on this question.
 
  • #4
Alec V said:
Eq. 2
gif.gif


Stephen Tashi said:
You have to explain the relations that exist among the symbols to get help on this question.
Yes, especially ##\Pi_{s1}## and ##\Pi_{sS2}##. Are they just numbers or is something else going on? The symbol ##\Pi## is usually used to denote a product.
 
  • #5
Sorry, I should have clarified. ∏s1 is profit in country 1, ∏s2 is profit in country 2, ∈s1 is risk in country 1, ∈s2 is risk in country 2, and δ is the discount rate.

Eq. 2 tries to separate risk elements (∈s1 and ∈s2) from the profit gap between countries. Hope this helps.
 
  • #6
∏ as variable is a bit unusual, but as long as all symbols are just variables, their meaning does not matter. This just needs the basic rules to work with fractions.
 
  • #7
The results of a simple numerical test did produce identical answers for EPV. (Of course someone should check my program.)
#include <stdio.h>
#include <math.h>void main()

{double pi_1, pi_2, delta, ep_1, ep_2;
double frac1,frac2, numerator, denom1, denom2;
double epv_1, epv_2;
pi_1 = 10.0;
pi_2 = 30.0;
delta = 0.25;
ep_1 = 6.0;
ep_2 = 5.0;
printf("pi_1 = %6.3f pi_2 = %6.3f delta = %6.3f ep_1 = %6.3f ep_2 = %6.3f\n\n",pi_1,pi_2,delta,ep_1,ep_2);

denom1 = 1.0 - delta + delta * ep_1;
frac1 = pi_1/denom1;
printf("frac1 %6.4f\n", frac1);
denom2 = 1.0 - delta + delta * ep_2;
frac2 = pi_2/denom2;
printf("frac2 %6.4f\n",frac2);
epv_1 = frac1 - frac2;
printf("epv_1 = %6.3f\n\n",epv_1);

frac1 = (pi_1 - pi_2)/ (1.0 - delta);
printf("frac1 %6.4f\n", frac1);
frac2 = ( delta * ( denom1 * ep_2 * pi_2 - denom2 * ep_1 * pi_1) )/ ((1.0 - delta)*denom1* denom2 );
printf("frac2 %6.4f\n",frac2);
epv_2 = frac1 + frac2;
printf("epv_2 = %6.3f\n", epv_2);}

The output

pi_1 = 10.000 pi_2 = 30.000 delta = 0.250 ep_1 = 6.000 ep_2 = 5.000

frac1 4.4444
frac2 15.0000
epv_1 = -10.556

frac1 -26.6667
frac2 16.1111
epv_2 = -10.556
 
  • #8
Getting rid of terms in a denominator that don't cancel with anything in the numerator is a frequent mathematical daydream. Suppose we approach the problem as the desire to express:

[itex]( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) [/itex] as [itex]( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) \ + \ L [/itex]

where [itex] L [/itex] is the leftover stuff.

Then
[itex] L = \frac{A}{W+F} - \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W + G} + \frac{B}{W }[/itex]

[itex] = \frac{ AW - A(W+F)} {W(W+F)} + \frac{-BW+B(W+G)}{W(W+G)} [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{-AF}{W(W+F)} + \frac{BG}{W(W+G)} [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{1}{W} ( \frac{BG}{W+G} - \frac{AF}{W+F}) [/itex]

In the problem at hand, there are relations between [itex] W, F, G[/itex]

[itex] W = 1 -\delta [/itex]
[itex]F = \delta \epsilon_1 = (1-W)\epsilon_1 [/itex]
[itex]G = \delta \epsilon_2 = (1-W)\epsilon_2 [/itex]

Substituting in selected places for [itex] F [/itex] and [itex] G [/itex]

[itex] L = \frac{1}{W}( \frac{B(1-W)\epsilon_2}{W+G} - \frac{A(1-W)\epsilon_1}{W+F} ) [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{1-W}{W} ( \frac{ \epsilon_2 B}{W+G} - \frac{\epsilon_1 A}{W+F}) [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{1-W}{W} ( \frac{ (W+F)\epsilon_2 B - (W+G)\epsilon_1A}{(W+G)(W+F)}) [/itex]

In the problem at hand:
[itex] A = \prod_{s1} [/itex]
[itex] B = \prod_{s2} [/itex]
[itex] W = (1 -\delta) [/itex]
[itex] F = \delta \epsilon_{s1} [/itex]
[itex] G = \delta \epsilon_{s2} [/itex]
[itex] \epsilon_1 = \epsilon_{s1} [/itex]
[itex] \epsilon_2 = \epsilon_{s2} [/itex].
 
  • #9
Stephen Tashi said:
Getting rid of terms in a denominator that don't cancel with anything in the numerator is a frequent mathematical daydream. Suppose we approach the problem as the desire to express:

[itex]( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) [/itex] as [itex]( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) \ + \ L [/itex]

where [itex] L [/itex] is the leftover stuff.

Then
[itex] L = \frac{A}{W+F} - \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W + G} + \frac{B}{W }[/itex]

[itex] = \frac{ AW - A(W+F)} {W(W+F)} + \frac{-BW+B(W+G)}{W(W+G)} [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{-AF}{W(W+F)} + \frac{BG}{W(W+G)} [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{1}{W} ( \frac{BG}{W+G} - \frac{AF}{W+F}) [/itex]

In the problem at hand, there are relations between [itex] W, F, G[/itex]

[itex] W = 1 -\delta [/itex]
[itex]F = \delta \epsilon_1 = (1-W)\epsilon_1 [/itex]
[itex]G = \delta \epsilon_2 = (1-W)\epsilon_2 [/itex]

Substituting in selected places for [itex] F [/itex] and [itex] G [/itex]

[itex] L = \frac{1}{W}( \frac{B(1-W)\epsilon_2}{W+G} - \frac{A(1-W)\epsilon_1}{W+F} ) [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{1-W}{W} ( \frac{ \epsilon_2 B}{W+G} - \frac{\epsilon_1 A}{W+F}) [/itex]

[itex] = \frac{1-W}{W} ( \frac{ (W+F)\epsilon_2 B - (W+G)\epsilon_1A}{(W+G)(W+F)}) [/itex]

In the problem at hand:
[itex] A = \prod_{s1} [/itex]
[itex] B = \prod_{s2} [/itex]
[itex] W = (1 -\delta) [/itex]
[itex] F = \delta \epsilon_{s1} [/itex]
[itex] G = \delta \epsilon_{s2} [/itex]
[itex] \epsilon_1 = \epsilon_{s1} [/itex]
[itex] \epsilon_2 = \epsilon_{s2} [/itex].
Thanks so much! The simplification of L makes sense. Could you please dwell on how to separate [itex]( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) [/itex] from [itex]( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) [/itex]?
 
  • #10
Alec V said:
. Could you please dwell on how to separate [itex]( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) [/itex] from [itex]( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) [/itex]?

I'm not sure what you are asking.
 
  • #11
Stephen Tashi said:
I'm not sure what you are asking.

So, we expressed [itex]( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) [/itex] as [itex]( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) \ + \ L [/itex]. You then proceed to further simplify the leftover stuff. However, how can we get from [itex]( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) [/itex] to [itex]( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) \ + \ L [/itex]?

Thanks.
 
  • #12
Alec V said:
However, how can we get from [itex]( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) [/itex] to [itex]( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) \ + \ L [/itex]?

I just defined [itex] L [/itex] to be [itex] ( \frac{A}{W + F} - \frac{B}{W + G}) - ( \frac{A}{W} - \frac{B}{W}) [/itex]
 

FAQ: How to decompose the following expression?

What does it mean to "decompose" an expression?

Decomposing an expression means breaking it down into smaller, simpler parts or terms. This can make the expression easier to understand and solve.

How do I know which method to use to decompose an expression?

The method used to decompose an expression depends on the type of expression and the operations involved. Some common methods include factoring, using the distributive property, and using the order of operations.

Can I use more than one method to decompose an expression?

Yes, it is often helpful to use multiple methods to decompose an expression. This can make the process more efficient and can also provide a better understanding of the expression.

What are the benefits of decomposing an expression?

Decomposing an expression can make it easier to solve, as well as provide a better understanding of the individual parts and how they contribute to the overall expression. It can also help identify common factors or patterns that can be used in other expressions.

Is it necessary to decompose an expression every time?

No, it is not always necessary to decompose an expression. In some cases, the expression may already be in its simplest form and does not require further decomposition. It is important to evaluate the expression and determine if decomposition would be helpful in solving it.

Similar threads

Back
Top