I guess I don't know enough about this Majority function to wrap my head around it... I just don't know where to begin with this. I'm no pro Verilog yet lol
It's defined as a function of x, y, and z, so I'm thinking the function would be a function of three binary input bits. Beyond that I'm lost.
Any help/direction appreciated.
In boolean terms, a majority gate is true if more than half it's inputs are true. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Majority_function
If you think about it those simple terms than the 3 input example is fairly simple. There are only 3 situations that will result in a true.
(X AND Y) OR (Y AND Z) OR (X AND Z)
You may want to extend that to an arbitrary number of inputs and that is what the equation is for. My verilog is fairly rusty so I don't remember right off but I think that you can do that kind of math with binary inputs if you so choose.
Related
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 am attempting to fit a circle to some data. This requires numerically solving a set of three non-linear simultaneous equations (see the Full Least Squares Method of this document).
To me it seems that the NEWTON function provided by IDL is fit for solving this problem. NEWTON requires the name of a function that will compute the values of the equation system for particular values of the independent variables:
FUNCTION newtfunction,X
RETURN, [Some function of X, Some other function of X]
END
While this works fine, it requires that all parameters of the equation system (in this case the set of data points) is hard coded in the newtfunction. This is fine if there is only one data set to solve for, however I have many thousands of data sets, and defining a new function for each by hand is not an option.
Is there a way around this? Is it possible to define functions programmatically in IDL, or even just pass in the data set in some other manner?
I am not an expert on this matter, but if I were to solve this problem I would do the following. Instead of solving a system of 3 non-linear equations to find the three unknowns (i.e. xc, yc and r), I would use an optimization routine to converge to a solution by starting with an initial guess. For this steepest descent, conjugate gradient, or any other multivariate optimization method can be used.
I just quickly derived the least square equation for your problem as (please check before use):
F = (sum_{i=1}^{N} (xc^2 - 2 xi xc + xi^2 + yc^2 - 2 yi yc + yi^2 - r^2)^2)
Calculating the gradient for this function is fairly easy, since it is just a summation, and therefore writing a steepest descent code would be trivial, to calculate xc, yc and r.
I hope it helps.
It's usual to use a COMMON block in these types of functions to pass in other parameters, cached values, etc. that are not part of the calling signature of the numeric routine.
I have a function f(x) = 1/(x + a+ b*I*sign(x)) and I want to calculate the
integral of
dx dy dz f(x) f(y) f(z) f(x+y+z) f(x-y - z)
over the entire R^3 (b>0 and a,- b are of order unity). This is just a representative example -- in practice I have n<7 variables and 2n-1 instances of f(), n of them involving the n integration variables and n-1 of them involving some linear combintation of the integration variables. At this stage I'm only interested in a rough estimate with relative error of 1e-3 or so.
I have tried the following libraries :
Steven Johnson's cubature code: the hcubature algorithm works but is abysmally slow, taking hundreds of millions of integrand evaluations for even n=2.
HintLib: I tried adaptive integration with a Genz-Malik rule, the cubature routines, VEGAS and MISER with the Mersenne twister RNG. For n=3 only the first seems to be somewhat viable option but it again takes hundreds of millions of integrand evaluations for n=3 and relerr = 1e-2, which is not encouraging.
For the region of integration I have tried both approaches: Integrating over [-200, 200]^n (i.e. a region so large that it essentially captures most of the integral) and the substitution x = sinh(t) which seems to be a standard trick.
I do not have much experience with numerical analysis but presumably the difficulty lies in the discontinuities from the sign() term. For n=2 and f(x)f(y)f(x-y) there are discontinuities along x=0, y=0, x=y. These create a very sharp peak around the origin (with a different sign in the various quadrants) and sort of 'ridges' at x=0,y=0,x=y along which the integrand is large in absolute value and changes sign as you cross them. So at least I know which regions are important. I was thinking that maybe I could do Monte Carlo but somehow "tell" the algorithm in advance where to focus. But I'm not quite sure how to do that.
I would be very grateful if you had any advice on how to evaluate the integral with a reasonable amount of computing power or how to make my Monte Carlo "idea" work. I've been stuck on this for a while so any input would be welcome. Thanks in advance.
One thing you can do is to use a guiding function for your Monte Carlo integration: given an integral (am writing it in 1D for simplicity) of ∫ f(x) dx, write it as ∫ f(x)/g(x) g(x) dx, and use g(x) as a distribution from which you sample x.
Since g(x) is arbitrary, construct it such that (1) it has peaks where you expect them to be in f(x), and (2) such that you can sample x from g(x) (e.g., a gaussian, or 1/(1+x^2)).
Alternatively, you can use a Metropolis-type Markov chain MC. It will find the relevant regions of the integrand (almost) by itself.
Here are a couple of trivial examples.
Reading this question got me thinking: For a given function f, how can we know that a loop of this form:
while (x > 2)
x = f(x)
will stop for any value x? Is there some simple criterion?
(The fact that f(x) < x for x > 2 doesn't seem to help since the series may converge).
Specifically, can we prove this for sqrt and for log?
For these functions, a proof that ceil(f(x))<x for x > 2 would suffice. You could do one iteration -- to arrive at an integer number, and then proceed by simple induction.
For the general case, probably the best idea is to use well-founded induction to prove this property. However, as Moron pointed out in the comments, this could be impossible in the general case and the right ordering is, in many cases, quite hard to find.
Edit, in reply to Amnon's comment:
If you wanted to use well-founded induction, you would have to define another strict order, that would be well-founded. In case of the functions you mentioned this is not hard: you can take x << y if and only if ceil(x) < ceil(y), where << is a symbol for this new order. This order is of course well-founded on numbers greater then 2, and both sqrt and log are decreasing with respect to it -- so you can apply well-founded induction.
Of course, in general case such an order is much more difficult to find. This is also related, in some way, to total correctness assertions in Hoare logic, where you need to guarantee similar obligations on each loop construct.
There's a general theorem for when then sequence of iterations will converge. (A convergent sequence may not stop in a finite number of steps, but it is getting closer to a target. You can get as close to the target as you like by going far enough out in the sequence.)
The sequence x, f(x), f(f(x)), ... will converge if f is a contraction mapping. That is, there exists a positive constant k < 1 such that for all x and y, |f(x) - f(y)| <= k |x-y|.
(The fact that f(x) < x for x > 2 doesn't seem to help since the series may converge).
If we're talking about floats here, that's not true. If for all x > n f(x) is strictly less than x, it will reach n at some point (because there's only a limited number of floating point values between any two numbers).
Of course this means you need to prove that f(x) is actually less than x using floating point arithmetic (i.e. proving it is less than x mathematically does not suffice, because then f(x) = x may still be true with floats when the difference is not enough).
There is no general algorithm to determine whether a function f and a variable x will end or not in that loop. The Halting problem is reducible to that problem.
For sqrt and log, we could safely do that because we happen to know the mathematical properties of those functions. Say, sqrt approaches 1, log eventually goes negative. So the condition x < 2 has to be false at some point.
Hope that helps.
In the general case, all that can be said is that the loop will terminate when it encounters xi≤2. That doesn't mean that the sequence will converge, nor does it even mean that it is bounded below 2. It only means that the sequence contains a value that is not greater than 2.
That said, any sequence containing a subsequence that converges to a value strictly less than two will (eventually) halt. That is the case for the sequence xi+1 = sqrt(xi), since x converges to 1. In the case of yi+1 = log(yi), it will contain a value less than 2 before becoming undefined for elements of R (though it is well defined on the extended complex plane, C*, but I don't think it will, in general converge except at any stable points that may exist (i.e. where z = log(z)). Ultimately what this means is that you need to perform some upfront analysis on the sequence to better understand its behavior.
The standard test for convergence of a sequence xi to a point z is that give ε > 0, there is an n such that for all i > n, |xi - z| < ε.
As an aside, consider the Mandelbrot Set, M. The test for a particular point c in C for an element in M is whether the sequence zi+1 = zi2 + c is unbounded, which occurs whenever there is a |zi| > 2. Some elements of M may converge (such as 0), but many do not (such as -1).
Sure. For all positive numbers x, the following inequality holds:
log(x) <= x - 1
(this is a pretty basic result from real analysis; it suffices to observe that the second derivative of log is always negative for all positive x, so the function is concave down, and that x-1 is tangent to the function at x = 1). From this it follows essentially immediately that your while loop must terminate within the first ceil(x) - 2 steps -- though in actuality it terminates much, much faster than that.
A similar argument will establish your result for f(x) = sqrt(x); specifically, you can use the fact that:
sqrt(x) <= x/(2 sqrt(2)) + 1/sqrt(2)
for all positive x.
If you're asking whether this result holds for actual programs, instead of mathematically, the answer is a little bit more nuanced, but not much. Basically, many languages don't actually have hard accuracy requirements for the log function, so if your particular language implementation had an absolutely terrible math library this property might fail to hold. That said, it would need to be a really, really terrible library; this property will hold for any reasonable implementation of log.
I suggest reading this wikipedia entry which provides useful pointers. Without additional knowledge about f, nothing can be said.