Currently, I am working on a program that integrates x + x^2 + e^x + 2cos(x/2) - 1 with three input variables, a, b, and n. What I need returned is the numerical integral from a to b with n increments. The function also has to return trapezoids for each n as a column vector. Thus, the integral value as a scalar, and a vector of values.
I've gotten to a point where the function int_f_1 is undefined for some reason, and I have no idea why. I thought by nesting that function under the test function, it would help. But it does not, and I don't know why that is. Any suggestions?
function [y] = test_function_1(x);
y = x + x.^2 + exp(x) + 2*cos(x/2) - 1
end
function [int_f, increment] = int_f_1 (a, b, n);
f = #test_function_1;
h = a + b ./ n
increments = h
int_f = integral(h, f)
end
Related
In Unison, functions are identified by the hashes of their ASTs instead of by their names.
Their documentation and their FAQs have given some explanations of the mechanism.
However, the example presented in the link is not clear to me how the hashing actually works:
They used an example
f x = g (x - 1)
g x = f (x / 2)
which in the first step of their hashing is converted to the following:
$0 =
f x = $0 (x - 1)
g x = $0 (x / 2)
Doesn't this lose information about the definitions.
For the two following recursively-defined functions, how can the hashing distinguish them:
# definition 1
f x = g (x / 2)
g x = h (x + 1)
h x = f (x * 2 - 7)
# definition 2
f x = h (x / 2)
g x = f (x + 1)
h x = g (x * 2 - 7)
In my understanding, brutally converting all calling of f g and h to $0 would make the two definitions undistinguishable from each other. What am I missing?
The answer is that the form in the example (with $0) is not quite accurate. But in short, there's a special kind of hash (a "cycle hash") which is has the form #h.n where h is the hash of all the mutually recursive definitions taken together, and n is a number from 0 to the number of terms in the cycle. Each definition in the cycle gets the same hash, plus an index.
The long answer:
Upon seeing cyclical definitions, Unison captures them in a binding form called Cycle. It's a bit like a lambda, but introduces one bound variable for each definition in the cycle. References within the cycle are then replaced with those variables. So:
f x = g (x - 1)
g x = f (x / 2)
Internally becomes more like (this is not valid Unison syntax):
$0 = Cycle f g ->
letrec
[ x -> g (x - 1)
, x -> f (x / 2) ]
It then hashes each of the lambdas inside the letrec and sorts them by that hash to get a canonical order. Then the whole cycle is hashed. Then these "cycle hashes" of the form #h.n get introduced at the top level for each lambda (where h is the hash of the whole cycle and n is the canonical index of each term), and the bound variables get replaced with the cycle hashes:
#h.0 = x -> #h.1 (x - 1)
#h.1 = x -> #h.0 (x / 2)
f = #h.0
g = #h.1
Using Octave's symbolic package, I define a symbolic function of t like this:
>> syms a b c d t real;
>> f = poly2sym([a b c], t) + d * exp(t)
f = (sym)
2 t
a⋅t + b⋅t + c + d⋅ℯ
I also have another function with known coefficients:
>> g = poly2sym([2 3 5], t) + 7 * exp(t)
g = (sym)
2 t
2⋅t + 3⋅t + 7⋅ℯ + 5
I would like to solve f == g for the coefficients a, b, c, d such that the equation holds for all values of t. That is, I simply want to equate the coefficients of t^2 in both equations, and the coefficients of exp(t), etc. I am looking for this solution:
a = 2
b = 3
c = 5
d = 7
When I try to solve the equation using solve, this is what I get:
>> solve(f == g, a, b, c, d)
ans = (sym)
t 2 t
-b⋅t - c - d⋅ℯ + 2⋅t + 3⋅t + 7⋅ℯ + 5
───────────────────────────────────────
2
t
It solves for a in terms of b, c, d, t. This is understandable since in essence there is no difference between the variables b, c and t. But I was wondering if there was a method to somehow separate the terms (using their symbolic form w. r. t. the variable t) and solve the resulting system of linear equations on a, b, c, d.
Note: The function I wrote here is a minimal example. What I am really trying to do is to solve a linear ordinary differential equation using the method of undetermined coefficients. For example, I define something like y = a*exp(-t) + b*t*exp(-t), and solve for diff(y, t, t) + diff(y,t) + y == t*exp(-t). But I believe solving the problem with simpler functions will lead me to the right direction.
I have found a terribly slow and dirty method to get the job done. The coefficients have to be linear in a, b, ... though.
The idea is to follow these steps:
Write the equation in f - g form (which equals zero)
Use expand() to separate the terms
Use children() to get the terms in the equation as a symbolic vector
Now that we have the terms in a vector, we can find those that are the same function of t and add their coefficients together. The way I checked this was by checking if the division of two terms had t as a symbolic variable
For each term, find other terms with the same function of t, add all these coefficients together, save the obtained equation in a vector
Pass the vector of created equations to solve()
This code solves the equation I wrote in the note at the end of my question:
pkg load symbolic
syms t a b real;
y = a * exp(-t) + b * t * exp(-t);
lhs = diff(y, t, t) + diff(y, t) + y;
rhs = t * exp(-t);
expr = expand(lhs - rhs);
chd = children(expr);
used = false(size(chd));
equations = [];
for z = 1:length(chd)
if used(z)
continue
endif
coefficients = 0;
for zz = z + 1:length(chd)
if used(zz)
continue
endif
division = chd(zz) / chd(z);
vars = findsymbols(division);
if sum(has(vars, t)) == 0 # division result has no t
used(zz) = true;
coefficients += division;
endif
endfor
coefficients += 1; # for chd(z)
vars = findsymbols(chd(z));
nott = vars(!has(vars, t));
if length(nott)
coefficients *= nott;
endif
equations = [equations, expand(coefficients)];
endfor
solution = solve(equations == 0);
How can I make a function with a vector as input and a matrix as an output?
I have to write a function that will convert cubic meters to liters and English gallons. The input should be a vector containing volume values in m ^ 3 to be converted. The result should be a matrix in which the first column contains the result in m ^ 3, the second liter, the third English gallon.
I tried this:
function [liter, gallon] = function1 (x=[a, b, c, d]);
liter= a-10+d-c;
gallon= b+15+c;
endfunction
You're almost there.
The x=[a,b,c,d] part is superfluous, your argument should be just x.
function [liter, gallon] = function1 (x);
a = x(1); b = x(2); c = x(3); d = x(4);
liter = a - 10 + d - c;
gallon = b + 15 + c;
endfunction
If you want your code to be safe and guard against improper inputs, you can perform such checks manually inside the function, e.g.
assert( nargin < 1 || nargin > 4, "Wrong number of inputs supplied");
The syntax x=[a,b,c,d] does not apply to octave; this is reserved for setting up default arguments, in which case a, b, c, and d should be given specific values that you'd want as the defaults. if you had said something like x = [1,2,3,4], then this would be fine, and it would mean that if you called the function without an argument, it would set x up to this default value.
For my homework assignment in ML I have to use the fold function and an anonymous function to turn a list of integers into the alternating sum. If the list is empty, the result is 0. This is what I have so far. I think what I have is correct, but my biggest problem is I cannot figure out how to write what I have as an anonymous function. Any help would be greatly appreciated.
fun foldl f y nil = y
| foldl f y (x::xr) =
foldl f(f(x,y))xr;
val sum = foldl (op -) ~6[1,2,3,4,5,6];
val sum = foldl (op -) ~4[1,2,3,4];
val sum = foldl (op -) ~2[1,2];
These are just some examples that I tested to see if what I had worked and I think all three are correct.
There are two cases: one when the list length is even and one when the list length is odd. If we have a list [a,b,c,d,e] then the alternating sum is a - b + c - d + e. You can re-write this as
e - (d - (c - (b - a)))
If the list has an even length, for example [a,b,c,d] then we can write its alternating sum as
- (d - (c - (b - a))).
So to address these two cases, we can have our accumulator for fold be a 3-tuple, where the first entry is the correct value if the list is odd, the second entry is the correct value if the list is even, and the third value tells us the number of elements we've looked at, which we can use to know at the end if the answer is the first or second entry.
So an anonymous function like
fn (x,y,n) => (x - #1 y, ~(x + #2 y), n + 1)
will work, and we can use it with foldl with a starting accumulator of (0,0,0), so
fun alternating_sum xs =
let
(v1, v2, n) = foldl (fn (x,y,n) => (x - #1 y, ~(x + #2 y), n + 1)) (0,0,0) xs
in
if n mod 2 = 0 then v2 else v1
end
I have an equation for a parabolic curve intersecting a specified point, in my case where the user clicked on a graph.
// this would typically be mouse coords on the graph
var _target:Point = new Point(100, 50);
public static function plot(x:Number, target:Point):Number{
return (x * x) / target.x * (target.y / target.x);
}
This gives a graph such as this:
I also have a series of line segments defined by start and end coordinates:
startX:Number, startY:Number, endX:Number, endY:Number
I need to find if and where this curve intersects these segments (A):
If it's any help, startX is always < endX
I get the feeling there's a fairly straight forward way to do this, but I don't really know what to search for, nor am I very well versed in "proper" math, so actual code examples would be very much appreciated.
UPDATE:
I've got the intersection working, but my solution gives me the coordinate for the wrong side of the y-axis.
Replacing my target coords with A and B respectively, gives this equation for the plot:
(x * x) / A * (B/A)
// this simplifies down to:
(B * x * x) / (A * A)
// which i am the equating to the line's equation
(B * x * x) / (A * A) = m * x + b
// i run this through wolfram alpha (because i have no idea what i'm doing) and get:
(A * A * m - A * Math.sqrt(A * A * m * m + 4 * b * B)) / (2 * B)
This is a correct answer, but I want the second possible variation.
I've managed to correct this by multiplying m with -1 before the calculation and doing the same with the x value the last calculation returns, but that feels like a hack.
SOLUTION:
public static function intersectsSegment(targetX:Number, targetY:Number, startX:Number, startY:Number, endX:Number, endY:Number):Point {
// slope of the line
var m:Number = (endY - startY) / (endX - startX);
// where the line intersects the y-axis
var b:Number = startY - startX * m;
// solve the two variatons of the equation, we may need both
var ix1:Number = solve(targetX, targetY, m, b);
var ix2:Number = solveInverse(targetX, targetY, m, b);
var intersection1:Point;
var intersection2:Point;
// if the intersection is outside the line segment startX/endX it's discarded
if (ix1 > startX && ix1 < endX) intersection1 = new Point(ix1, plot(ix1, targetX, targetY));
if (ix2 > startX && ix2 < endX) intersection2 = new Point(ix2, plot(ix2, targetX, targetY));
// somewhat fiddly code to return the smallest set intersection
if (intersection1 && intersection2) {
// return the intersection with the smaller x value
return intersection1.x < intersection2.x ? intersection1 : intersection2;
} else if (intersection1) {
return intersection1;
}
// this effectively means that we return intersection2 or if that's unset, null
return intersection2;
}
private static function solve(A:Number, B:Number, m:Number, b:Number):Number {
return (m + Math.sqrt(4 * (B / (A * A)) * b + m * m)) / (2 * (B / (A * A)));
}
private static function solveInverse(A:Number, B:Number, m:Number, b:Number):Number {
return (m - Math.sqrt(4 * (B / (A * A)) * b + m * m)) / (2 * (B / (A * A)));
}
public static function plot(x:Number, targetX:Number, targetY:Number):Number{
return (targetY * x * x) / (targetX * targetX);
}
Or, more explicit yet.
If your parabolic curve is
y(x)= A x2+ B x + C (Eq 1)
and your line is
y(x) = m x + b (Eq 2)
The two possible solutions (+ and -) for x are
x = ((-B + m +- Sqrt[4 A b + B^2 - 4 A C - 2 B m + m^2])/(2 A)) (Eq 3)
You should check if your segment endpoints (in x) contains any of these two points. If they do, just replace the corresponding x in the y=m x + b equation to get the y coordinate for the intersection
Edit>
To get the last equation you just say that the "y" in eq 1 is equal to the "y" in eq 2 (because you are looking for an intersection!).
That gives you:
A x2+ B x + C = m x + b
and regrouping
A x2+ (B-m) x + (C-b) = 0
Which is a quadratic equation.
Equation 3 are just the two possible solutions for this quadratic.
Edit 2>
re-reading your code, it seems that your parabola is defined by
y(x) = A x2
where
A = (target.y / (target.x)2)
So in your case Eq 3 becomes simply
x = ((m +- Sqrt[4 A b + m^2])/(2 A)) (Eq 3b)
HTH!
Take the equation for the curve and put your line into y = mx +b form. Solve for x and then determine if X is between your your start and end points for you line segment.
Check out: http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.03/senthil1.html
Are you doing this often enough to desire a separate test to see if an intersection exists before actually computing the intersection point? If so, consider the fact that your parabola is a level set for the function f(x, y) = y - (B * x * x) / (A * A) -- specifically, the one for which f(x, y) = 0. Plug your two endpoints into f(x,y) -- if they have the same sign, they're on the same side of the parabola, while if they have different signs, they're on different sides of the parabola.
Now, you still might have a segment that intersects the parabola twice, and this test doesn't catch that. But something about the way you're defining the problem makes me feel that maybe that's OK for your application.
In other words, you need to calulate the equation for each line segment y = Ax + B compare it to curve equation y = Cx^2 + Dx + E so Ax + B - Cx^2 - Dx - E = 0 and see if there is a solution between startX and endX values.