how are you?.
I'm trying to create a function that calculates the z-transform of a transfer function using the residues method but for that, I need the factors of the characteristic equation and the powers of the factors, so, in order to do that I tried to factorize polynomials with non-integer coefficients but after trying everything that I read I couldn't factorize make maxima to factorize those polynomials the way I need it.
For giving an example, I have this characteristic equation: "s·(s^2+0.1·s)", the factors should be "s^2" and "s + 0.1" but maxima allways gives me "(s^2·(10·s + 1))/10".
Why I'm signalling this?, well, as I learned that maxima treates the outputs equation as list so I can have its dimension and separate the factos by its positions in the list to measure the powers of the factors and do what I need, but like maxima gives me the result that is shown above then the dimension of the list is different and it will make my function to work differently and possibly have errors.
The result that is shown is given by maxima no matter if I use factor, gfactor, or expand or whatever other function that I found and I know that result is because maxima are rationalizing the polynomial before working with it but I don't need that behavior, I only need the pure factors, so, how can I have the result that I want?.
Thanks in advance for the help.
Related
I have two - likely simple - questions that are bothering me, both related to quadratic programming:
1). There are two "standard" forms of the objective function I have found, differing by multiplication of negative 1.
In the R package quadprog, the objective function to be minimized is given as −dTb+12bTDb and in Matlab the objective is given as dTb+12bTDb. How can these be the same? It seems that one has been multiplied through by a negative 1 (which as I understand it would change from a min problem to a max problem.
2). Related to the first question, in the case of using quadprog for minimizing least squares, in order to get the objective function to match the standard form, it is necessary to multiply the objective by a positive 2. Does multiplication by a positive number not change the solution?
EDIT: I had the wrong sign for the Matlab objective function.
Function f(b)=dTb is a linear function thus it is both convex and concave. From optimization standpoint it means you can maximize or minimize it. Nevertheless minimizer of −dTb+12bTDb will be different from dTb+12bTDb, because there is additional quadratic term. Matlab implementation will find the one with plus sign. So if you are using different optimization software you will need to change d→−d to get the same result.
The function −dTb+12bTDb where D is symmetric and convex and thus has unique minimum. In general that is called standard quadratic programming form, but that doesn't really matter. The other function dTb−12bTDb is concave function which has unique maximum. It is easy to show that for, say, bounded function f(x) from above the following holds:
argmaxxf=argminx−f
Using the identity above value b∗1 where −dTb+12bTDb achieves minimum is the same as the value b∗2 which achieves maximum at dTb−12bTDb, that is b∗1=b∗2.
Programmatically it doesn't matter if you are minimizing −dTb+12bTDb or maximizing the other one. These are implementation-dependent details.
No it does not. ∀α>0 if x∗=argmaxxf(x), then x∗=argmaxxαf(x). This can be showed by contradiction.
I'm using
R=QQ['x'];
to declare x as variable such that I can calculate with polynomials in x. What I need is another variable, for example t, to represent an integer which can also be used as exponent. For example I want to consider the polynomial (t+1)x^t. Is that somehow possible in SageMath?
EDIT: I want to explain a little bit the reason why I'm looking for such a feature. I've got a couple of really complex rational functions in a few variables and want SageMath to help me to show that they are identical. They are written down in a different way and if you would do it with pen and paper you would need hours and have a huge change of making mistakes. Actually it are not only a few rational functions but infinitely many. But using variables in the coefficients you can cover infinitely many with only one rational function. A simple example is the polynomial 1+x+x^2+...+x^t. For every non-negative integer you get a different polynomial. But you can write (x^(t+1)-1)/(x-1) as rational function instead. With taking t as a variable you cover infinitely many cases with just one rational function.
Is there a way to do such stuff in SageMath?
To create the polynomial x^t as an element of a polynomial ring, Sage needs to know what integer t is equal to. If polynomials of undetermined degree were introduced, most of the Sage methods for polynomials would not work for them: no way to get the list of coefficients with coefficients(), or to find the factors, or the GCD of two polynomials, etc.
However, you can manipulate and simplify polynomials and rational functions just like any other symbolic expressions. For example:
x,t,k = var('x,t,k')
sum(x^k, k, 1, t)
returns (x^(t + 1) - x)/(x - 1).
The relevant articles are Symbolic Computation and Symbolic Expressions.
I have implemented an algorithm that uses two other algorithms for calculating the shortest path in a graph: Dijkstra and Bellman-Ford. Based on the time complexity of the these algorithms, I can calculate the running time of my implementation, which is easy giving the code.
Now, I want to experimentally verify my calculation. Specifically, I want to plot the running time as a function of the size of the input (I am following the method described here). The problem is that I have two parameters - number of edges and number of vertices.
I have tried to fix one parameter and change the other, but this approach results in two plots - one for varying number of edges and the other for varying number of vertices.
This leads me to my question - how can I determine the order of growth based on two plots? In general, how can one experimentally determine the running time complexity of an algorithm that has more than one parameter?
It's very difficult in general.
The usual way you would experimentally gauge the running time in the single variable case is, insert a counter that increments when your data structure does a fundamental (putatively O(1)) operation, then take data for many different input sizes, and plot it on a log-log plot. That is, log T vs. log N. If the running time is of the form n^k you should see a straight line of slope k, or something approaching this. If the running time is like T(n) = n^{k log n} or something, then you should see a parabola. And if T is exponential in n you should still see exponential growth.
You can only hope to get information about the highest order term when you do this -- the low order terms get filtered out, in the sense of having less and less impact as n gets larger.
In the two variable case, you could try to do a similar approach -- essentially, take 3 dimensional data, do a log-log-log plot, and try to fit a plane to that.
However this will only really work if there's really only one leading term that dominates in most regimes.
Suppose my actual function is T(n, m) = n^4 + n^3 * m^3 + m^4.
When m = O(1), then T(n) = O(n^4).
When n = O(1), then T(n) = O(m^4).
When n = m, then T(n) = O(n^6).
In each of these regimes, "slices" along the plane of possible n,m values, a different one of the terms is the dominant term.
So there's no way to determine the function just from taking some points with fixed m, and some points with fixed n. If you did that, you wouldn't get the right answer for n = m -- you wouldn't be able to discover "middle" leading terms like that.
I would recommend that the best way to predict asymptotic growth when you have lots of variables / complicated data structures, is with a pencil and piece of paper, and do traditional algorithmic analysis. Or possibly, a hybrid approach. Try to break the question of efficiency into different parts -- if you can split the question up into a sum or product of a few different functions, maybe some of them you can determine in the abstract, and some you can estimate experimentally.
Luckily two input parameters is still easy to visualize in a 3D scatter plot (3rd dimension is the measured running time), and you can check if it looks like a plane (in log-log-log scale) or if it is curved. Naturally random variations in measurements plays a role here as well.
In Matlab I typically calculate a least-squares solution to two-variable function like this (just concatenates different powers and combinations of x and y horizontally, .* is an element-wise product):
x = log(parameter_x);
y = log(parameter_y);
% Find a least-squares fit
p = [x.^2, x.*y, y.^2, x, y, ones(length(x),1)] \ log(time)
Then this can be used to estimate running times for larger problem instances, ideally those would be confirmed experimentally to know that the fitted model works.
This approach works also for higher dimensions but gets tedious to generate, maybe there is a more general way to achieve that and this is just a work-around for my lack of knowledge.
I was going to write my own explanation but it wouldn't be any better than this.
Basically, I have a set of up to 100 co-ordinates, along with the desired tangents to the curve at the first and last point.
I have looked into various methods of curve-fitting, by which I mean an algorithm with takes the inputted data points and tangents, and outputs the equation of the cure, such as the gaussian method and interpolation, but I really struggled understanding them.
I am not asking for code (If you choose to give it, thats acceptable though :) ), I am simply looking for help into this algorithm. It will eventually be converted to Objective-C for an iPhone app, if that changes anything..
EDIT:
I know the order of all of the points. They are not too close together, so passing through all points is necessary - aka interpolation (unless anyone can suggest something else). And as far as I know, an algebraic curve is what I'm looking for. This is all being done on a 2D plane by the way
I'd recommend to consider cubic splines. There is some explanation and code to calculate them in plain C in Numerical Recipes book (chapter 3.3)
Most interpolation methods originally work with functions: given a set of x and y values, they compute a function which computes a y value for every x value, meeting the specified constraints. As a function can only ever compute a single y value for every x value, such an curve cannot loop back on itself.
To turn this into a real 2D setup, you want two functions which compute x resp. y values based on some parameter that is conventionally called t. So the first step is computing t values for your input data. You can usually get a good approximation by summing over euclidean distances: think about a polyline connecting all your points with straight segments. Then the parameter would be the distance along this line for every input pair.
So now you have two interpolation problem: one to compute x from t and the other y from t. You can formulate this as a spline interpolation, e.g. using cubic splines. That gives you a large system of linear equations which you can solve iteratively up to the desired precision.
The result of a spline interpolation will be a piecewise description of a suitable curve. If you wanted a single equation, then a lagrange interpolation would fit that bill, but the result might have odd twists and turns for many sets of input data.
I searched the site but did not find exactly what I was looking for... I wanted to generate a discrete random number from normal distribution.
For example, if I have a range from a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 10 and an average of 7. What code or function call ( Objective C preferred ) would I need to return a number in that range. Naturally, due to normal distribution more numbers returned would center round the average of 7.
As a second example, can the bell curve/distribution be skewed toward one end of the other? Lets say I need to generate a random number with a range of minimum of 4 and maximum of 10, and I want the majority of the numbers returned to center around the number 8 with a natural fall of based on a skewed bell curve.
Any help is greatly appreciated....
Anthony
What do you need this for? Can you do it the craps player's way?
Generate two random integers in the range of 2 to 5 (inclusive, of course) and add them together. Or flip a coin (0,1) six times and add 4 to the result.
Summing multiple dice produces a normal distribution (a "bell curve"), while eliminating high or low throws can be used to skew the distribution in various ways.
The key is you are going for discrete numbers (and I hope you mean integers by that). Multiple dice throws famously generate a normal distribution. In fact, I think that's how we were first introduced to the Gaussian curve in school.
Of course the more throws, the more closely you approximate the bell curve. Rolling a single die gives a flat line. Rolling two dice just creates a ramp up and down that isn't terribly close to a bell. Six coin flips gets you closer.
So consider this...
If I understand your question correctly, you only have seven possible outcomes--the integers (4,5,6,7,8,9,10). You can set up an array of seven probabilities to approximate any distribution you like.
Many frameworks and libraries have this built-in.
Also, just like TokenMacGuy said a normal distribution isn't characterized by the interval it's defined on, but rather by two parameters: Mean μ and standard deviation σ. With both these parameters you can confine a certain quantile of the distribution to a certain interval, so that 95 % of all points fall in that interval. But resticting it completely to any interval other than (−∞, ∞) is impossible.
There are several methods to generate normal-distributed values from uniform random values (which is what most random or pseudorandom number generators are generating:
The Box-Muller transform is probably the easiest although not exactly fast to compute. Depending on the number of numbers you need, it should be sufficient, though and definitely very easy to write.
Another option is Marsaglia's Polar method which is usually faster1.
A third method is the Ziggurat algorithm which is considerably faster to compute but much more complex to program. In applications that really use a lot of random numbers it may be the best choice, though.
As a general advice, though: Don't write it yourself if you have access to a library that generates normal-distributed random numbers for you already.
For skewing your distribution I'd just use a regular normal distribution, choosing μ and σ appropriately for one side of your curve and then determine on which side of your wanted mean a point fell, stretching it appropriately to fit your desired distribution.
For generating only integers I'd suggest you just round towards the nearest integer when the random number happens to fall within your desired interval and reject it if it doesn't (drawing a new random number then). This way you won't artificially skew the distribution (such as you would if you were clamping the values at 4 or 10, respectively).
1 In testing with deliberately bad random number generators (yes, worse than RANDU) I've noticed that the polar method results in an endless loop, rejecting every sample. Won't happen with random numbers that fulfill the usual statistic expectations to them, though.
Yes, there are sophisticated mathematical solutions, but for "simple but practical" I'd go with Nosredna's comment. For a simple Java solution:
Random random=new Random();
public int bell7()
{
int n=4;
for (int x=0;x<6;++x)
n+=random.nextInt(2);
return n;
}
If you're not a Java person, Random.nextInt(n) returns a random integer between 0 and n-1. I think the rest should be similar to what you'd see in any programming language.
If the range was large, then instead of nextInt(2)'s I'd use a bigger number in there so there would be fewer iterations through the loop, depending on frequency of call and performance requirements.
Dan Dyer and Jay are exactly right. What you really want is a binomial distribution, not a normal distribution. The shape of a binomial distribution looks a lot like a normal distribution, but it is discrete and bounded whereas a normal distribution is continuous and unbounded.
Jay's code generates a binomial distribution with 6 trials and a 50% probability of success on each trial. If you want to "skew" your distribution, simply change the line that decides whether to add 1 to n so that the probability is something other than 50%.
The normal distribution is not described by its endpoints. Normally it's described by it's mean (which you have given to be 7) and its standard deviation. An important feature of this is that it is possible to get a value far outside the expected range from this distribution, although that will be vanishingly rare, the further you get from the mean.
The usual means for getting a value from a distribution is to generate a random value from a uniform distribution, which is quite easily done with, for example, rand(), and then use that as an argument to a cumulative distribution function, which maps probabilities to upper bounds. For the standard distribution, this function is
F(x) = 0.5 - 0.5*erf( (x-μ)/(σ * sqrt(2.0)))
where erf() is the error function which may be described by a taylor series:
erf(z) = 2.0/sqrt(2.0) * Σ∞n=0 ((-1)nz2n + 1)/(n!(2n + 1))
I'll leave it as an excercise to translate this into C.
If you prefer not to engage in the exercise, you might consider using the Gnu Scientific Library, which among many other features, has a technique to generate random numbers in one of many common distributions, of which the Gaussian Distribution (hint) is one.
Obviously, all of these functions return floating point values. You will have to use some rounding strategy to convert to a discrete value. A useful (but naive) approach is to simply downcast to integer.