1

I have these equations where I know all the $k_{nm}$. I'm trying to find the complex value of $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ with only four scalar values. Essentially, I'm expending on my previous questions (Solving two complex equation using two real values) and (Solving three complex equation using three real values). $p_n=\left|\frac{1}{\Gamma_1 k_{n5}+k_{n6}} \frac{\Gamma_2 k_{n2}+k_{n1}}{\Gamma_2 k_{n4}+k_{n3}}\right|^2$ for $n=3,4,5,6$

$p_n=\left|\frac{1}{\Gamma_1 k_{n5}+k_{n6}} \frac{\Gamma_2 k_{n2}+k_{n1}}{\Gamma_2 k_{n4}+k_{n3}}\right|^2=\left|\frac{1}{\Gamma_1 k_{n5}+k_{n6}}\right|^2 \left| \frac{\Gamma_2 k_{n2}+k_{n1}}{\Gamma_2 k_{n4}+k_{n3}}\right|^2=\psi_{n1} \psi_{n2}$

$\psi_{n1}= \frac{1}{\left| k_{n5} k_{n6} \Gamma_1\right|^2} \to r_{n1}=\left|\Gamma_1 -c_{n1}\right|^2$ with $r_{n1}^2= \frac{1}{\psi_{n1} \left| k_{n6} \right|^2}$ and $c_{n1}=-\frac{k_{n5}}{k_{n6}}$

$\psi_{n1}= \left|\frac{k_{n1} + k_{n2} \Gamma_2}{ k_{n3}+ k_{4} \Gamma_2}\right|^2 \to r_{n2}=\left|\Gamma_2 -c_{n2}\right|^2$ with $r_{n2}=\frac{(\left| k_{n1} \right|^2-\psi_{n2} \left| k_{n3} \right|^2) (\left| k_{n2} \right|^2-\psi_{n2} \left| k_{n4} \right|^2)-\left|k_{n1} {k_{n2}}^*-k_{n3}{k_{n4}}^* \psi _2\right|^2 }{\left| k_{n2} \right|^2-\left| k_{n4} \right|^2}$and $c_{2}=-\frac{k_{n1} {k_{n2}}^*-k_{n3}{k_{n4}}^* \psi _2 }{\left| k_{n2} \right|^2-\left| k_{n4} \right|^2}$

I feel that this form is somewhat part of the solution since it allows the two equations to be decoupled one from the other and it would then be possible to place it in a matrix and solve it from there. But, I haven't figured how yet.

An other idea I had was to make a 6*6 matrix with $\left( \begin{array}{c} \Gamma _1 \\ {\Gamma _1}^* \\ {\left| \Gamma _1\right|}^2 \\ \Gamma _2 \\ {\Gamma _2}^* \\ {\left| \Gamma _2\right|}^2 \\ \end{array} \right).$I was hoping from there I would be able to solve it with Cramer rule like was suggest in my previous question, but I can't figure how to prevent $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$ from multiplying. If they do multiply, I get 9 equations. I don't think I need that many degree of freedom (but might be wrong).

I also tried to use the exact technique from Solving three complex equation using three real values but considering $\Gamma_1$ as $p_{n1}$ but the degree of freedom is too low and I can't figure how to increase it.

Do you have any suggestion to solve this problem? Maybe I started in the wrong direction. I'm not sure what to do.

Thanks!

Bill Dubuque
  • 272,048
Julien
  • 143
  • I think I made a mistake in the question. $p_n != {r_{n1}}^2 {r_{n2}}^2.$ To place these equation over a this form, $p_n = {\psi_1}^2{\psi_2}^2$ with ${r_{nm}}^2$ and $c_{nm}$ are both function of $\psi_m$. – Julien Jul 13 '23 at 18:10
  • If you made a mistake in the question you must [edit] the question to fix it, not write a comment. – Ethan Bolker Jul 18 '23 at 17:05
  • Yeah, I was lazy! I modified the formulation of the question to make it easier to understand. Thanks for the advice! – Julien Jul 18 '23 at 22:24

1 Answers1

1

(Too long for a comment.)

Eliminating denominators and expanding the squared magnitudes, similarly to this answer, the system can be written as

$$ a_{k,1} \Gamma_2 + a_{k,2} \overline{\Gamma_2} + a_{k,3} \left|\Gamma_2\right|^2 + a_{k,4} = 0 \qquad \text{for }\; k = 1,2,3,4 $$

where the coefficients $\,a_{i,j}\,$ are complex polynomials in $\,\Gamma_1, \overline{\Gamma_1}$

Considering the four equations as a linear homogeneous system in $\,\Gamma_2, \overline{\Gamma_2}, \left|\Gamma_2\right|^2, 1\,$, the main determinant must be zero for the non-trivial solution to exist:

$$ \det \big[\,a_{i,j}\,\big] = 0 $$

The latter is an algebraic equation of the form $\,p(\Gamma_1, \overline{\Gamma_1}) = 0\,$ with $\,p\,$ being a bivariate complex polynomial. Taking the conjugate $\,\overline{p}(\overline{\Gamma_1}, \Gamma_1) = 0\,$, and eliminating $\,\overline{\Gamma_1}\,$ between the two (using resultants, for example) gives an algebraic equation in $\,\Gamma_1\,$ alone. The calculations are laborious, though, and there will be no closed-form algebraic solutions in general.

dxiv
  • 76,497
  • I'm impressed! You make everything look so trivial! As an electrical engineer, I never touch to the resultant operator. So figuring out how your answer work will take me some time! But thank you so much! – Julien Jul 21 '23 at 18:47
  • 1
    Thanks, and I hope it helps. To repeat the disclaimer at the end, expect the calculations to be massive and ugly, even with the help of a CAS. In the general case each $a_{i,j}$ has total degree $2$ in $,\Gamma_1, \overline{\Gamma_1}$, so $p$ has degree $2^4 = 16$, which means the resultant $\operatorname{res}_{\overline{\Gamma_1}}(p, \overline p)$ has degree $16^2 = 256$. – dxiv Jul 21 '23 at 23:50
  • 1
    It took me way longer then I would have expect to understand the Resultant operator but it really seems promising. The main issue I have with this technique is the numerical accuracy. Even Wolfram Mathematica isn't able to keep up. I was surprised to see exponent in the order of 750! Therefore, I'm trying to do the resultant analytically and then do the numerical application, but it might be a bit computer intensive! I'll update you whenever I get a step forward! – Julien Aug 01 '23 at 20:37
  • I figured the issue why the exponents were going that high. for some reason, Mathematica decided to place a factor in front of the equation with an exponent of -790. The other exponents were simply to the roof for no reason! I coded a work around that works great! So no more exponent issue! – Julien Aug 03 '23 at 14:36
  • I have tried to find a way to solve the system but both the Resultant nor converting it to Real and Imaginary didn't yield any accurate results. When I fit my numbers in the system of equation, I get the expected values, but solving them doesn't seems to work. Do you have any other advises? – Julien Aug 04 '23 at 19:12
  • 1
    @Julien "doesn't seem to work" $;-;$ If it's just a matter of insufficient numerical precision, then that depends on which root-finding algorithms you use to solve the polynomials. If you mean that you have a solution $,\Gamma_1, \Gamma_2,$ to the original system, but $,\Gamma_1,$ is not a root of the resultant, then that should not happen, and you would need to elaborate some more. Solving for complex roots directly vs. deriving the separate equations for the real/imaginary parts and solving those for real roots should not make much of a difference in either case. – dxiv Aug 04 '23 at 21:16
  • The precision level is set by wolfram Mathematica. I never had any issue with it, but, since I don't understand the resultant, it could be the issue. What I mean by "it doesn't work" is that, for a set of values $p_n$ and $k_{nm}$ generated from $\Gamma_1$ and $\Gamma_2$, all the roots of the resultant are not $\Gamma_1$ with at least 30% error from the closest root. When I input my known $\Gamma_1$, in the result of the resultant, I find something very close to 0 ($10^{-261}$), but if I input the results of the resultant I find values that are even closer to 0($10^{-270}$). – Julien Aug 07 '23 at 15:45