Sorry for the basic question, but it's quite hard to find too much discussion on Maxima specifics.
I'm trying to learn some Maxima and wanted to use something like
x:2
x+=2
which as far as I can tell doesn't exist in Maxima. Then I discovered that I can define my own operators as infix operators, so I tried doing
infix("+=");
"+=" (a,b):= a:(a+b);
However this doesn't work, as if I first set x:1 then try calling x+=2, the function returns 3, but if I check the value of x I see it hasn't changed.
Is there a way to achieve what I was trying to do in Maxima? Could anyone explain why the definition I gave fails?
Thanks!
The problem with your implementation is that there is too much and too little evaluation -- the += function doesn't see the symbol x so it doesn't know to what variable to assign the result, and the left-hand side of an assignment isn't evaluated, so += thinks it is assigning to a, not x.
Here's one way to get the right amount of evaluation. ::= defines a macro, which is just a function which quotes its arguments, and for which the return value is evaluated again. buildq is a substitution function which quotes the expression into which you are substituting. So the combination of ::= and buildq here is to construct the x: x + 2 expression and then evaluate it.
(%i1) infix ("+=") $
(%i2) "+="(a, b) ::= buildq ([a, b], a: a + b) $
(%i3) x: 100 $
(%i4) macroexpand (x += 1);
(%o4) x : x + 1
(%i5) x += 1;
(%o5) 101
(%i6) x;
(%o6) 101
(%i7) x += 1;
(%o7) 102
(%i8) x;
(%o8) 102
So it is certainly possible to do so, if you want to do that. But may I suggest maybe you don't need it? Modifying a variable makes it harder to keep track, mentally, what is going on. A programming policy such as one-time assignment can make it easier for the programmer to understand the program. This is part of a general approach called functional programming; perhaps you can take a look at that. Maxima has various features which make it possible to use functional programming, although you are not required to use them.
Using Mathematica I need to evaluate the integral of a function. Since it is taking the program too much to compute it, would it be possible to use parallel computation to shorten the time needed? If so, how can I do it?
I uploaded a picture of the integrand function:
I need to integrate it with respect to (x3, y3, x, y) all of them ranging in a certain interval (x3 and y3 from 0 to 1) (x and y from 0 to 100). The parameters (a,b,c...,o) are preventing the NIntegrate function to work. Any suggestions?
If you evaluate this
expr=E^((-(x-y)^4-(x3-y3)^4)/10^4)*
(f x+e x^2+(m+n x)x3-f y-e y^2-(m+n y)y3)*
((378(x-y)^2(f x+e x^2+(m+n x)x3-f y-e y^2-(m+n y)y3))/
(Pi(1/40+Sqrt[((x-y)^2+(x3-y3)^2)^3]))+
(378(x-y)(x3-y3)(h x+g x^2+(o+p x)x3-h y-g y^2-(o+p y)y3))/
(Pi(1/40+Sqrt[((x-y)^2+(x3-y3)^2)^3])))+
(h x+g x^2+(o+p x)x3-h y-g y^2-(o +p y) y3)*
((378(x-y)(x3-y3)(f x+e x^2+(m+n x)x3-f y-e y^2-(m+n y)y3))/
(Pi(1/40+Sqrt[((x-y)^2+(x3-y3)^2)^3]))+
(378 (x3 - y3)^2 (h x + g x^2 + (o + p x)x3-h y-g y^2-(o+p y)y3))/
(Pi(1/40+Sqrt[((x-y)^2+(x3-y3)^2)^3])));
list=List ## Expand[expr]
then you will get a list of 484 expressions, each very similar in form to this
(378*f*h*x^3*x3)/(Pi*(1/40+Sqrt[(x^2+x3^2-2*x*y+y^2-2*x3*y3+y3^2)^3]))
Notice that you can then use NIntegrate in this way
f*h*NIntegrate[(378*x^3*x3)/(Pi*(1/40+Sqrt[(x^2+x3^2-2*x*y+y^2-2*x3*y3+y3^2)^3])),
{x,0,100},{y,0,100},{x3,0,1},{y3,0,1}]
but it gives warnings and errors about the convergence and accuracy, almost certainly due to your fractional powers in the denominator.
If you can find a way to pull out the scalar multipliers which are independent of x,y,x3,y3 and then perform that integration without warnings and errors and get an accurate result which isn't infinity then you could perhaps perform these integrals in parallel and total the results.
Some of the integrands are scalar multiples of others and if you combine similar integrands then you can reduce this down to 300 unique integrands.
I doubt this is going to lead to an acceptable solution for you.
Please check all this very carefully to make certain that no mistakes have been made.
EDIT
Since the variables that are independent of the integration appear to be easily separated from the dependent variables in the problem posed above, I think this will allow parallel NIntegrate
independentvars[z_] := (z/(z//.{e->1, f->1, g->1, h->1, m->1, n->1, o->1, p->1}))*
NIntegrate[(z//.{e->1, f->1, g->1, h->1, m->1, n->1, o->1, p->1}),
{x, 0, 100}, {y, 0, 100}, {x3, 0, 1}, {y3, 0, 1}]
Total[ParallelMap[independentvars, list]]
As I mentioned previously, the fractional powers in the denominator result in a flood of warnings and errors about convergence failing.
You can test this with the following much simpler example
expr = f x + f g x3 + o^2 x x3;
list = List ## Expand[expr];
Total[ParallelMap[independentvars, list]]
which instantly returns
500000. f + 5000. f g + 250000. o^2
This is a very primitive method of pulling independent symbolic variables outside an NIntegrate. This gives absolutely no warning if one of the integrands is not in a form where this primitive attempt at extraction is not appropriate or fails.
There may be a far better method that someone else has written out there somewhere. If someone could show a far better method of doing this then I would appreciate it.
It might be nice if Wolfram would consider incorporating something like this into NIntegrate itself.
I need an algorithm to perform a 2D bisection method for solving a 2x2 non-linear problem. Example: two equations f(x,y)=0 and g(x,y)=0 which I want to solve simultaneously. I am very familiar with the 1D bisection ( as well as other numerical methods ). Assume I already know the solution lies between the bounds x1 < x < x2 and y1 < y < y2.
In a grid the starting bounds are:
^
| C D
y2 -+ o-------o
| | |
| | |
| | |
y1 -+ o-------o
| A B
o--+------+---->
x1 x2
and I know the values f(A), f(B), f(C) and f(D) as well as g(A), g(B), g(C) and g(D). To start the bisection I guess we need to divide the points out along the edges as well as the middle.
^
| C F D
y2 -+ o---o---o
| | |
|G o o M o H
| | |
y1 -+ o---o---o
| A E B
o--+------+---->
x1 x2
Now considering the possibilities of combinations such as checking if f(G)*f(M)<0 AND g(G)*g(M)<0 seems overwhelming. Maybe I am making this a little too complicated, but I think there should be a multidimensional version of the Bisection, just as Newton-Raphson can be easily be multidimed using gradient operators.
Any clues, comments, or links are welcomed.
Sorry, while bisection works in 1-d, it fails in higher dimensions. You simply cannot break a 2-d region into subregions using only information about the function at the corners of the region and a point in the interior. In the words of Mick Jagger, "You can't always get what you want".
I just stumbled upon the answer to this from geometrictools.com and C++ code.
edit: the code is now on github.
I would split the area along a single dimension only, alternating dimensions. The condition you have for existence of zero of a single function would be "you have two points of different sign on the boundary of the region", so I'd just check that fro the two functions. However, I don't think it would work well, since zeros of both functions in a particular region don't guarantee a common zero (this might even exist in a different region that doesn't meet the criterion).
For example, look at this image:
There is no way you can distinguish the squares ABED and EFIH given only f() and g()'s behaviour on their boundary. However, ABED doesn't contain a common zero and EFIH does.
This would be similar to region queries using eg. kD-trees, if you could positively identify that a region doesn't contain zero of eg. f. Still, this can be slow under some circumstances.
If you can assume (per your comment to woodchips) that f(x,y)=0 defines a continuous monotone function y=f2(x), i.e. for each x1<=x<=x2 there is a unique solution for y (you just can't express it analytically due to the messy form of f), and similarly y=g2(x) is a continuous monotone function, then there is a way to find the joint solution.
If you could calculate f2 and g2, then you could use a 1-d bisection method on [x1,x2] to solve f2(x)-g2(x)=0. And you can do that by using 1-d bisection on [y1,y2] again for solving f(x,y)=0 for y for any given fixed x that you need to consider (x1, x2, (x1+x2)/2, etc) - that's where the continuous monotonicity is helpful -and similarly for g. You have to make sure to update x1-x2 and y1-y2 after each step.
This approach might not be efficient, but should work. Of course, lots of two-variable functions don't intersect the z-plane as continuous monotone functions.
I'm not much experient on optimization, but I built a solution to this problem with a bisection algorithm like the question describes. I think is necessary to fix a bug in my solution because it compute tow times a root in some cases, but i think it's simple and will try it later.
EDIT: I seem the comment of jpalecek, and now I anderstand that some premises I assumed are wrong, but the methods still works on most cases. More especificaly, the zero is garanteed only if the two functions variate the signals at oposite direction, but is need to handle the cases of zero at the vertices. I think is possible to build a justificated and satisfatory heuristic to that, but it is a little complicated and now I consider more promising get the function given by f_abs = abs(f, g) and build a heuristic to find the local minimuns, looking to the gradient direction on the points of the middle of edges.
Introduction
Consider the configuration in the question:
^
| C D
y2 -+ o-------o
| | |
| | |
| | |
y1 -+ o-------o
| A B
o--+------+---->
x1 x2
There are many ways to do that, but I chose to use only the corner points (A, B, C, D) and not middle or center points liky the question sugests. Assume I have tow function f(x,y) and g(x,y) as you describe. In truth it's generaly a function (x,y) -> (f(x,y), g(x,y)).
The steps are the following, and there is a resume (with a Python code) at the end.
Step by step explanation
Calculate the product each scalar function (f and g) by them self at adjacent points. Compute the minimum product for each one for each direction of variation (axis, x and y).
Fx = min(f(C)*f(B), f(D)*f(A))
Fy = min(f(A)*f(B), f(D)*f(C))
Gx = min(g(C)*g(B), g(D)*g(A))
Gy = min(g(A)*g(B), g(D)*g(C))
It looks to the product through tow oposite sides of the rectangle and computes the minimum of them, whats represents the existence of a changing of signal if its negative. It's a bit of redundance but work's well. Alternativaly you can try other configuration like use the points (E, F, G and H show in the question), but I think make sense to use the corner points because it consider better the whole area of the rectangle, but it is only a impression.
Compute the minimum of the tow axis for each function.
F = min(Fx, Fy)
G = min(Gx, Gy)
It of this values represents the existence of a zero for each function, f and g, within the rectangle.
Compute the maximum of them:
max(F, G)
If max(F, G) < 0, then there is a root inside the rectangle. Additionaly, if f(C) = 0 and g(C) = 0, there is a root too and we do the same, but if the root is in other corner we ignore him, because other rectangle will compute it (I want to avoid double computation of roots). The statement bellow resumes:
guaranteed_contain_zeros = max(F, G) < 0 or (f(C) == 0 and g(C) == 0)
In this case we have to proceed breaking the region recursively ultil the rectangles are as small as we want.
Else, may still exist a root inside the rectangle. Because of that, we have to use some criterion to break this regions ultil the we have a minimum granularity. The criterion I used is to assert the largest dimension of the current rectangle is smaller than the smallest dimension of the original rectangle (delta in the code sample bellow).
Resume
This Python code resume:
def balance_points(x_min, x_max, y_min, y_max, delta, eps=2e-32):
width = x_max - x_min
height = y_max - y_min
x_middle = (x_min + x_max)/2
y_middle = (y_min + y_max)/2
Fx = min(f(C)*f(B), f(D)*f(A))
Fy = min(f(A)*f(B), f(D)*f(C))
Gx = min(g(C)*g(B), g(D)*g(A))
Gy = min(g(A)*g(B), g(D)*g(C))
F = min(Fx, Fy)
G = min(Gx, Gy)
largest_dim = max(width, height)
guaranteed_contain_zeros = max(F, G) < 0 or (f(C) == 0 and g(C) == 0)
if guaranteed_contain_zeros and largest_dim <= eps:
return [(x_middle, y_middle)]
elif guaranteed_contain_zeros or largest_dim > delta:
if width >= height:
return balance_points(x_min, x_middle, y_min, y_max, delta) + balance_points(x_middle, x_max, y_min, y_max, delta)
else:
return balance_points(x_min, x_max, y_min, y_middle, delta) + balance_points(x_min, x_max, y_middle, y_max, delta)
else:
return []
Results
I have used a similar code similar in a personal project (GitHub here) and it draw the rectangles of the algorithm and the root (the system have a balance point at the origin):
Rectangles
It works well.
Improvements
In some cases the algorithm compute tow times the same zero. I thinh it can have tow reasons:
I the case the functions gives exatly zero at neighbour rectangles (because of an numerical truncation). In this case the remedy is to incrise eps (increase the rectangles). I chose eps=2e-32, because 32 bits is a half of the precision (on 64 bits archtecture), then is problable that the function don't gives a zero... but it was more like a guess, I don't now if is the better. But, if we decrease much the eps, it extrapolates the recursion limit of Python interpreter.
The case in witch the f(A), f(B), etc, are near to zero and the product is truncated to zero. I think it can be reduced if we use the product of the signals of f and g in place of the product of the functions.
I think is possible improve the criterion to discard a rectangle. It can be made considering how much the functions are variating in the region of the rectangle and how distante the function is of zero. Perhaps a simple relation between the average and variance of the function values on the corners. In another way (and more complicated) we can use a stack to store the values on each recursion instance and garantee that this values are convergent to stop recursion.
This is a similar problem to finding critical points in vector fields (see http://alglobus.net/NASAwork/topology/Papers/alsVugraphs93.ps).
If you have the values of f(x,y) and g(x,y) at the vertexes of your quadrilateral and you are in a discrete problem (such that you don't have an analytical expression for f(x,y) and g(x,y) nor the values at other locations inside the quadrilateral), then you can use bilinear interpolation to get two equations (for f and g). For the 2D case the analytical solution will be a quadratic equation which, according to the solution (1 root, 2 real roots, 2 imaginary roots) you may have 1 solution, 2 solutions, no solutions, solutions inside or outside your quadrilateral.
If instead you have analytic functions of f(x,y) and g(x,y) and want to use them, this is not useful. Instead you could divide your quadrilateral recursively, however as it was already pointed out by jpalecek (2nd post), you would need a way to stop your divisions by figuring out a test that would assure you would have no zeros inside a quadrilateral.
Let f_1(x,y), f_2(x,y) be two functions which are continuous and monotonic with respect to x and y. The problem is to solve the system f_1(x,y) = 0, f_2(x,y) = 0.
The alternating-direction algorithm is illustrated below. Here, the lines depict sets {f_1 = 0} and {f_2 = 0}. It is easy to see that the direction of movement of the algorithm (right-down or left-up) depends on the order of solving the equations f_i(x,y) = 0 (e.g., solve f_1(x,y) = 0 w.r.t. x then solve f_2(x,y) = 0 w.r.t. y OR first solve f_1(x,y) = 0 w.r.t. y and then solve f_2(x,y) = 0 w.r.t. x).
Given the initial guess, we don't know where the root is. So, in order to find all roots of the system, we have to move in both directions.