I believe the Berlekamp Welch algorithm can be used to correctly construct the secret using Shamir Secret Share as long as $t<n/3$. How can we speed up the BW algorithm implementation using Fast Fourier transform?
Berlekamp Welch is used to correct errors for the original encoding scheme for Reed Solomon code, where there is a fixed set of data points known to encoder and decoder, and a polynomial based on the message to be transmitted, unknown to the decoder. This approach was mostly replaced by switching to a BCH type code where a fixed polynomial known to both encoder and decoder is used instead.
Berlekamp Welch inverts a matrix with time complexity O(n^3). Gao improved on this, reducing time complexity to O(n^2) based on extended Euclid algorithm. Note that the R[-1] product series is pre-computed based on the fixed set of data points, in order to achieve the O(n^2) time complexity. Link to the Wiki section on "original view" decoders.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction#Reed_Solomon_original_view_decoders
Discreet Fourier essentially is the same as the encoding process, except there is a constraint on the fixed data points for encoding (they need to be successive powers of the field primitive) in order for the inverse transform to work. The inverse transform only works if the received data is error free. Lagrange interpolation doesn't have the constraint on the data points, and doesn't require the received data to be error free. Wiki has a section on this also:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reed%E2%80%93Solomon_error_correction#Discrete_Fourier_transform_and_its_inverse
In coding theory, the Welch-Berlekamp key equation is a interpolation problem, i.e. w(x)s(x) = n(x) for x = x_1, x_2, ...,x_m, where s(x) is known. Its solution is a polynomial pair (w(x), n(x)) satisfying deg(n(x)) < deg(w(x)) <= m/2. (Here m is even)
The Welch-Berlekamp algorithm is an algorithm for solving this with O(m^2). On the other hand, D.B. Blake et al. described the solution set as a module of rank 2 and gave an another algorithm (called modular approach) with O(m^2). You can see the paper (DOI: 10.1109/18.391235)
Over binary fields, FFT is complex since the size of the multiplicative group cannot be a power of 2. However, Lin, et al. give a new polynomial basis such that the FFT transforms over binary fields is with complexity O(nlogn). Furthermore, this method has been used in decoding Reed-Solomon (RS) codes in which a modular approach is taken. This modular approach takes the advantages of FFT such that its complexity is O(nlog^2n). This is the best complexity to date. The details are in (DOI: 10.1109/TCOMM.2022.3215998) and in (https://arxiv.org/abs/2207.11079, open access).
To sum up, this exists a fast modular approach which uses FFT and is capable of solving the interpolation problem in RS decoding. You should metion that this method requires that the evaluation set to be a subspace v or v + a. Maybe the above information is helpful.
I'm trying to implement Laguerre's method for following equation:
1/(99*x+1)=2. (general form is more complex - polynomial of n-th degree 1/(a*x+1)+...+1/(z*x+1)=res) where a,b,...z>=0 and 0<res<N
but it quickly terminates and goes to infinity.
Solution for this case is very simple - -0.00505050505050505.
Since they say that Laguerre's method is working in 99.999% of cases, I hope this is not that 0.001?
Is there some other way that I could use to polynomial roots that is working in all cases? I need just one real root (and there is always 1 in my case).
Laguerres method works for polynomials exclusively, so you need to first transform your expressions into a polynomial form. Your first equation then becomes linear, which any method solves in one step. Your general problem has the form 1/x*q'(1/x)/q(1/x)=res with q(z)=(z+a1)*...*(z+an), so that the polynomial is z*q'(z)-res*q(z) or x^(n-1)*q'(1/x)-res*x^n*q(1/x).
If you want a third order method for general functions, try the Halley method.
Beloew Hyperlink shows Orthogonal Functions.
I used different commands in maple but i can't apply these Integral expressions in Maple.
How can i integrate such conditional Integrals ??? (For Example the Integral with red box around it)
Orthogonal Functions
(This is more of a math Question than a programming Question, so it probably should've gone to math.stackexchange.com.)
You need to use an assuming clause to tell Maple that m and n are integer, and you need to use option AllSolutions to int to tell it to do a case-by-case analysis of the parameters. For example,
int(sin(n*Pi*x/L)*sin(m*Pi*x/L), x= 0..L, AllSolutions)
assuming n::posint, m::posint, L>0;
I've assumed positivity of all parameters simply to reduce the number of cases presented in Maple's answer.
I would like to calculate an integral, which is determined by two functions: I(T) = ∫0T i( f(t), g(t)) dt where f and g solves ordinary differential equations and i is known.
The obvious approach would be to derive a differential equation for I and the solve it alongside f and g (which can be done, but is numerically expensive in my case). In my case, however, f solves an equation with an initial condition f(0) and g and equation with a final condition g(T).
My best guess at the moment would be to solve f and g on a grid using a standard ODE solver and then use a standard method for numerical integration with equally spaced t-coordinates or some kind of quadrature rule (basically anything described by Numerical Recipes).
Does anyone have a better solution? That is, a method that takes the specific type of ode solver and its accuracy into account.
Many advanced ODE solvers come with a feature called "dense output". The ODE solver gives you not only the values of f and g on a grid (as specified beforehand), but allows you to use its result to find the values at any time. Combining this with an adaptive quadrature rule should give you an answer to whatever precision you need.
I'd like to write a program that lets users draw points, lines, and circles as though with a straightedge and compass. Then I want to be able to answer the question, "are these three points collinear?" To answer correctly, I need to avoid rounding error when calculating the points.
Is this possible? How can I represent the points in memory?
(I looked into some unusual numeric libraries, but I didn't find anything that claimed to offer both exact arithmetic and exact comparisons that are guaranteed to terminate.)
Yes.
I highly recommend Introduction to constructions, which is a good basic guide.
Basically you need to be able to compute with constructible numbers - numbers that are either rational, or of the form a + b sqrt(c) where a,b,c were previously created (see page 6 on that PDF). This could be done with algebraic data type (e.g. data C = Rational Integer Integer | Root C C C in Haskell, where Root a b c = a + b sqrt(c)). However, I don't know how to perform tests with that representation.
Two possible approaches are:
Constructible numbers are a subset of algebraic numbers, so you can use algebraic numbers.
All algebraic numbers can be represented using polynomials of whose they are roots. The operations are computable, so if you represent a number a with polynomial p and b with polynomial q (p(a) = q(b) = 0), then it is possible to find a polynomial r such that r(a+b) = 0. This is done in some CASes like Mathematica, example. See also: Computional algebraic number theory - chapter 4
Use Tarski's test and represent numbers. It is slow (doubly exponential or so), but works :) Example: to represent sqrt(2), use the formula x^2 - 2 && x > 0. You can write equations for lines there, check if points are colinear etc. See A suite of logic programs, including Tarski's test
If you turn to computable numbers, then equality, colinearity etc. get undecidable.
I think the only way this would be possible is if you used a symbolic representation,
as opposed to trying to represent coordinate values directly -- so you would have
to avoid trying to coerce values like sqrt(2) into some numerical format. You will
be dealing with irrational numbers that are not finitely representable in binary,
decimal, or any other positional notation.
To expand on Jim Lewis's answer slightly, if you want to operate on points that are constructible from the integers with exact arithmetic, you will need to be able to operate on representations of the form:
a + b sqrt(c)
where a, b, and c are either rational numbers, or representations in the form given above. Wikipedia has a pretty decent article on the subject of what points are constructible.
Answering the question of exact equality (as necessary to establish colinearity) with such representations is a rather tricky problem.
If you try to compare co-ordinates for your points, then you have a problem. Leaving aside co-linearity for a moment, how about just working out whether two points are the same or not?
Supposing that one has given co-ordinates, and the other is a compass-straightedge construction starting from certain other co-ordinates, you want to determine with certainty whether they're the same point or not. Either way is a theorem of Euclidean geometry, it's not something you can just measure. You can prove they aren't the same by spotting some difference in their co-ordinates (for example by computing decimal places of each until you encounter a difference). But in general to prove they are the same cannot be done by approximate methods. Compute as many decimal places as you like of some expansions of 1/sqrt(2) and sqrt(2)/2, and you can prove they're very close together but you won't ever prove they're equal. That takes algebra (or geometry).
Similarly, to show that three points are co-linear you will need theorem-proving software. Represent the points A, B, C by their constructions, and attempt to prove the theorem "A, B and C are colinear". This is very hard - your program will prove some theorems but not others. Much easier is to ask the user for a proof that they are co-linear, and then verify (or refute) that proof, but that's probably not what you want.
In general, constructable points may have an arbitrarily complex symbolic form, so you must use a symbolic representation to work them exactly. As Stephen Canon noted above, you often need numbers of the form a+b*sqrt(c), where a and b are rational and c is an integer. All numbers of this form form a closed set under arithmetic operations. I have written some C++ classes (see rational_radical1.h) to work with these numbers if that is all you need.
It is also possible to construct numbers which are sums of any number of terms of rational multiples of radicals. When dealing with more than a single radicand, the numbers are no longer closed under multiplication and division, so you will need to store them as variable length rational coefficient arrays. The time complexity of operations will then be quadratic in the number of terms.
To go even further, you can construct the square root of any given number, so you could potentially have nested square roots. Here, the representations must be tree-like structures to deal with root hierarchy. While difficult to implement, there is nothing in principle preventing you from working with these representations. I'm not sure just what additional numbers can be constructed, but beyond a certain point, your symbolic representation will be expressive enough to handle very large classes of numbers.
Addendum
Found this Google Books link.
If the grid axes are integer valued then the answer is fairly straight forward, the points are either exactly colinear or they are not.
Typically however, one works with real numbers (well, floating points) and then draws the rounded values on the screen which does exist in integer space. In this case you have no choice but to pick a tolerance and use it to determine colinearity. Keep it small and the users will never know the difference.
You seem to be asking, in effect, "Can the normal mathematics (integer or floating point) used by computers be made to represent real numbers perfectly, with no rounding errors?" And, of course, the answer to that is "No." If you want theoretical correctness, then you will be stuck with the much harder problem of symbolic manipulation and coding up the equivalent of the inferences that are done in geometry. (In short, I'm agreeing with Steve Jessop, above.)
Some thoughts in the hope that they might help.
The sort of constructions you're talking about will require multiplication and division, which means that to preserve exactness you'll have to use rational numbers, which are generally easy to implement on top of a suitable sort of big integer (i.e., of unbounded magnitude). (Common Lisp has these built-in, and there have to be other languages.)
Now, you need to represent square roots of arbitrary numbers, and these have to be mixed in.
Therefore, a number is one of: a rational number, a rational number multiplied by a square root of a rational number (or, alternately, just the square root of a rational), or a sum of numbers. In order to prove anything, you're going to have to get these numbers into some sort of canonical form, which for all I can figure offhand may be annoying and computationally expensive.
This of course means that the users will be restricted to rational points and cannot use arbitrary rotations, but that's probably not important.
I would recommend no to try to make it perfectly exact.
The first reason for this is what you are asking here, the rounding error and all that stuff that comes with floating point calculations.
The second one is that you have to round your input as the mouse and screen work with integers. So, initially all user input would be integers, and your output would be integers.
Beside, from a usability point of view, its easier to click in the neighborhood of another point (in a line for example) and that the interface consider you are clicking in the point itself.