I am new to LabVIEW and I am trying to read a code written in LabVIEW. The block diagram is this:
This is the program to input x and y functions into the voltage input. It is meant to give an input voltage in different forms (sine, heartshape , etc.) into the fast-steering mirror or galvano mirror x and y axises.
x and y function controls are for inputting a formula for a function, and then we use "evaluation single value" function to input into a daq assistant.
I understand that { 2*(|-Mpi|)/N }*i + -Mpi*pi goes into the x value. However, I dont understand why we use this kind of formula. Why we need to assign a negative value and then do the absolute value of -M*pi. Also, I don`t understand why we need to divide to N and then multiply by i. And finally, why need to add -Mpi again? If you provide any hints about this I would really appreciate it.
This is just a complicated way to write the code/formula. Given what the code looks like (unnecessary wire bends, duplicate loop-input-tunnels, hidden wires, unnecessary coercion dots, failure to use appropriate built-in 'negate' function) not much care has been given in writing it. So while it probably yields the correct results you should not expect it to do so in the most readable way.
To answer you specific questions:
Why we need to assign a negative value and then do the absolute value
We don't. We can just move the negation immediately before the last addition or change that to a subtraction:
{ 2*(|Mpi|)/N }*i - Mpi*pi
And as #yair pointed out: We are not assigning a value here, we are basically flipping the sign of whatever value the user entered.
Why we need to divide to N and then multiply by i
This gives you a fraction between 0 and 1, no matter how many steps you do in your for-loop. Think of N as a sampling rate. I.e. your mirrors will always do the same movement, but a larger N just produces more steps in between.
Why need to add -Mpi again
I would strongly assume this is some kind of quick-and-dirty workaround for a bug that has not been fixed properly. Looking at the code it seems this +Mpi*pi has been added later on in the development process. And while I don't know what the expected values are I would believe that multiplying only one of the summands by Pi is probably wrong.
I need your help to solve this "Little" problem I'm having programming with GAMS.
In my objective function I have this member that is z = [...]-TWC(j)*HS(j).
Where HS(j)is a variable.
Now, TWC(j) should be a parameter that works like this:
TWC(j) = 0 when HS(j) < 1000
and
TWC(j) = 3.21 when HS(j) >=1000.
Any idea how to implement this in GAMS? my attempts all failed.
EDIT: this is what I tried I defined an equation called TWCup(j) that was:
TWCup(j)$(HS.l(j) >= 1000).. TWC(j) =e= 3.21;
Thanks ;)
Probably not relevant for the OP anymore (since the question is more than 3 years old), but maybe useful for someone else that looks at this question.
If TWC(j) is a function of your variable HS(j), it is not a parameter. It is another variable. So you should define TWC(j) as a variable and not as a parameter. This is probably the reason you were getting errors.
There are some ways to fix your problem: One is to actually turn TWC(j) into a variable. But this would turn your problem into non-linear which could be (or not) an issue. Also, this could need the use of binary variables, which could also become a problem (again, or not).
But I think this issue could be resolved with a different specification of the LP. The cost function f(HS(j)) = TWC(j)*HS(j) is linear by parts and convex, which you can represent in a standard LP using auxiliary variables (assuming you are minimizing).
* declare auxiliary variable
Variable
w(j);
* declare equations for linear by part cost function
Equation
costfun1(j)
costfun2(j);
;
* define costfun1 and costfun2
costfun1(j).. w(j) =g= 0;
costfun2(j).. w(j) =g= -3210 + 3.21*HS(j);
*redefine objective function (note that I changed to plus because I assumed this is a cost function that you are minimizing)
z = [...]+w(j)
This solution is very problem dependent. I assumed you were minimizing and I changed the sign in the objective function to '+'. If this was not the case, this would not work (would not be convex). Then we would need to check other approaches.
But the takeaway here is to stress that something that is a function of a variable is also a variable. But you may have options to reformulate your problem to address the problem.
I have written a finite volume model. The parameter n represents the number of volumes. After translating, the parameter can't be modified. Dymola gives this message:
Warning: Setting n has no effect in model.
After translation you can only set literal start-values and non-evaluated parameters.
I think the problem is that the parameter n is used in the equation section. There I use the following code:
equation
...
for i in 2:n-1 loop
T[i] = some equation
end for
I also use n for the calculation of the initial values of T.
The purpose is to make a script that repeatedly executes the model but with a different n.
How can I do this?
The issue here is that your parameter n affects the number of variables in the problem. Dymola (and all other Modelica compilers I know of) evaluate such parameters at compile time. In other words, they hard code the value at compile time into the model.
One potential workaround in your case is to perform the translation or simulation inside your loop. Note that in the translate and simulate commands in Dymola you can include modifications. Just add them after the model name. For example MyModel would become MyModel(n=10).
i am planning to use tinyGP as a way to train a set of Input variables (Around 400 or so) to a value set before. Is there a maximum size of Input variables? Do i need to specify the same amount of variables each time?
I have a lot of computation power (500 core cluster for a weekend) so any thoughts on what parameters to use for such a large problem?
cheers
In TinyGP your constant and variable pool share the same space. The total of these two spaces cannot exceede FSET_START, which is essentially the opcode of your first operator. By default is 110. So your 400 is already over this. This should be just a matter of increasing the opcode of the first instruction up to make enough space. You will also want to make sure you still have a big enough "constant pool".
You can see this checked with the following line in TinyGP:
if (varnumber + randomnumber >= FSET_START )
System.out.println("too many variables and constants");
This is a saga which began with the problem of how to do survey weighting. Now that I appear to be doing that correctly, I have hit a bit of a wall (see previous post for details on the import process and where the strata variable came from):
> require(foreign)
> ipums <- read.dta('/path/to/data.dta')
> require(survey)
> ipums.design <- svydesign(id=~serial, strata=~strata, data=ipums, weights=perwt)
Error in if (nbins > .Machine$integer.max) stop("attempt to make a table with >= 2^31 elements") :
missing value where TRUE/FALSE needed
In addition: Warning messages:
1: In pd * (as.integer(cat) - 1L) : NAs produced by integer overflow
2: In pd * nl : NAs produced by integer overflow
> traceback()
9: tabulate(bin, pd)
8: as.vector(data)
7: array(tabulate(bin, pd), dims, dimnames = dn)
6: table(ids[, 1], strata[, 1])
5: inherits(x, "data.frame")
4: is.data.frame(x)
3: rowSums(table(ids[, 1], strata[, 1]) > 0)
2: svydesign.default(id = ~serial, weights = ~perwt, strata = ~strata,
data = ipums)
1: svydesign(id = ~serial, weights = ~perwt, strata = ~strata, data = ipums)
This error seems to come from the tabulate function, which I hoped would be straightforward enough to circumvent, first by changing .Machine$integer.max
> .Machine$integer.max <- 2^40
and when that didn't work the whole source code of tabulate:
> tabulate <- function(bin, nbins = max(1L, bin, na.rm=TRUE))
{
if(!is.numeric(bin) && !is.factor(bin))
stop("'bin' must be numeric or a factor")
#if (nbins > .Machine$integer.max)
if (nbins > 2^40) #replacement line
stop("attempt to make a table with >= 2^31 elements")
.C("R_tabulate",
as.integer(bin),
as.integer(length(bin)),
as.integer(nbins),
ans = integer(nbins),
NAOK = TRUE,
PACKAGE="base")$ans
}
Neither circumvented the problem. Apparently this is one reason why the ff package was created, but what worries me is the extent to which this is a problem I cannot avoid in R. This post seems to indicate that even if I were to use a package that would avoid this problem, I would only be able to access 2^31 elements at a time. My hope was to use sql (either sqlite or postgresql) to get around the memory problems, but I'm afraid I'll spend a while getting that to work, only to run into the same fundamental limit.
Attempting to switch back to Stata doesn't solve the problem either. Again see the previous post for how I use svyset, but the calculation I would like to run causes Stata to hang:
svy: mean age, over(strata)
Whether throwing more memory at it will solve the problem I don't know. I run R on my desktop which has 16 gigs, and I use Stata through a Windows server, currently setting memory allocation to 2000MB, but I could theoretically experiment with increasing that.
So in sum:
Is this a hard limit in R?
Would sql solve my R problems?
If I split it up into many separate files would that fix it (a lot of work...)?
Would throwing a lot of memory at Stata do it?
Am I seriously barking up the wrong tree somehow?
Yes, R uses 32-bit indexes for vectors so they can contain no more than 2^31-1 entries and you are trying to create something with 2^40. There is talk of introducing 64-bit indexes but that will be some way off before appearing in R. Vectors have the stated hard limit and that is it as far as base R is concerned.
I am unfamiliar with the details of what you are doing to offer any further advice on the other parts of your Q.
Why do you want to work with the full data set? Wouldn't a smaller sample that can fit in to the restrictions R places on you be just as useful? You could use SQL to store all the data and query it from R to return a random subset of more appropriate size.
Since this question was asked some time ago, I'd like to point that my answer here uses the version 3.3 of the survey package.
If you check the code of svydesign, you can see that the function that causes all the problem is within a check step that looks whether you should set the nest parameter to TRUE or not. This step can be disabled setting the option check.strata=FALSE.
Of course, you shouldn't disable a check step unless you know what you are doing. In this case, you should be able to decide yourself whether you need to set the nest option to TRUE or FALSE. nest should be set to TRUE when the same PSU (cluster) id is recycled in different strata.
Concretely for the IPUMS dataset, since you are using the serial variable for cluster identification and serial is unique for each household in a given sample, you may want to set nest to FALSE.
So, your survey design line would be:
ipums.design <- svydesign(id=~serial, strata=~strata, data=ipums, weights=perwt, check.strata=FALSE, nest=FALSE)
Extra advice: even after circumventing this problem you will find that the code is pretty slow unless you remap strata to a range from 1 to length(unique(ipums$strata)):
ipums$strata <- match(ipums$strata,unique(ipums$strata))
Both #Gavin and #Martin deserve credit for this answer, or at least leading me in the right direction. I'm mostly answering it separately to make it easier to read.
In the order I asked:
Yes 2^31 is a hard limit in R, though it seems to matter what type it is (which is a bit strange given it is the length of the vector, rather than the amount of memory (which I have plenty of) which is the stated problem. Do not convert strata or id variables to factors, that will just fix their length and nullify the effects of subsetting (which is the way to get around this problem).
sql could probably help, provided I learn how to use it correctly. I did the following test:
library(multicore) # make svy fast!
ri.ny <- subset(ipums, statefips_num %in% c(36, 44))
ri.ny.design <- svydesign(id=~serial, weights=~perwt, strata=~strata, data=ri.ny)
svyby(~incwage, ~strata, ri.ny.design, svymean, data=ri.ny, na.rm=TRUE, multicore=TRUE)
ri <- subset(ri.ny, statefips_num==44)
ri.design <- svydesign(id=~serial, weights=~perwt, strata=~strata, data=ri)
ri.mean <- svymean(~incwage, ri.design, data=ri, na.rm=TRUE)
ny <- subset(ri.ny, statefips_num==36)
ny.design <- svydesign(id=~serial, weights=~perwt, strata=~strata, data=ny)
ny.mean <- svymean(~incwage, ny.design, data=ny, na.rm=TRUE, multicore=TRUE)
And found the means to be the same, which seems like a reasonable test.
So: in theory, provided I can split up the calculation by either using plyr or sql, the results should still be fine.
See 2.
Throwing a lot of memory at Stata definitely helps, but now I'm running into annoying formatting issues. I seem to be able to perform most of the calculation I want (much quicker and with more stability as well) but I can't figure out how to get it into the form I want. Will probably ask a separate question on this. I think the short version here is that for big survey data, Stata is much better out of the box.
In many ways yes. Trying to do analysis with data this big is not something I should have taken on lightly, and I'm far from figuring it out even now. I was using the svydesign function correctly, but I didn't really know what's going on. I have a (very slightly) better grasp now, and it's heartening to know I was generally correct about how to solve the problem. #Gavin's general suggestion of trying out small data with external results to compare to is invaluable, something I should have started ages ago. Many thanks to both #Gavin and #Martin.