I am trying to solve equations and output the derivations. I have no problem solving for the derivation but when I try to output the derivation it always comes with the variable name, examples:
{{w0fromxfun1[x] -> (8.46504 miu^(4/9) qi^(4/9) (-1. x + xf)^(4/9))/
Ep^(4/9)}}
{{uave[x] -> (0.382926 Ep^(1/4) qi^(3/4))/(
hf (miu (-1. x + xf))^(1/4))}}
See this link for a better view
My code for solving the derivation is here:
equ5 = uave[x] == ((qi Ep^(1/3))/(
3.59623 hf (hf miu (xf - x))^(1/3)))^(3/4);
diffequsol2 = PowerExpand[FullSimplify[DSolve[equ5, uave[x], x]]] // N;
waveofthemaxes =
FullSimplify[
1/xf Integrate[w0fromxfun[x], {x, 0, xf}, Assumptions -> trivial]];
equ6 = w0fromxfun1[
x] == ((4.5788*(hf miu qi/((\[Pi]/4) hf ) (-x + xf))^(1/3))/Ep^(
1/3))^(4/3);
diffequsol1 =
PowerExpand[FullSimplify[DSolve[equ6, w0fromxfun1[x], x]]] // N
See here for a better view of the code
I don't want the variable names in front of the derivations, I tried Fullsimplify and simplify but don't work.
Related
I am new to CVXPY, I learn by running examples and I found this post: How to construct a SOCP problem and solve using cvxpy and cvxpylayers #ben
The author provided the codes (Below I've corrected the line that caused an error in OP's EDIT 2):
import cvxpy as cp
import numpy as np
N = 5
Q_sqrt = cp.Parameter((N, N))
Q = cp.Parameter((N, N))
x = cp.Variable(N)
z = cp.Variable(N)
p = cp.Variable()
t = cp.Variable()
objective = cp.Minimize(p - t)
constraint_soc = [z == Q # x, x.value * z >= t ** 2, z >= 0, x >= 0] # <-- my question
constraint_other = [cp.quad_over_lin(Q_sqrt # x, p) <= N * p, cp.sum(x) == 1, p >= 0, t >= 0]
constraint_all = constraint_other + constraint_soc
matrix = np.random.random((N, N))
a_matrix = matrix.T # matrix
Q.value = a_matrix
Q_sqrt.value = np.sqrt(a_matrix)
prob = cp.Problem(objective, constraint_all)
prob.solve(verbose=True)
print("status:", prob.status)
print("optimal value", prob.value)
My question is here: x.value * z >= t ** 2
why only x.value while z not?
Actually I tried x * z, x.value * z.value, they both throw out errors, only the one in the original post works, which is x.value * z.
I googled and found this page and this, looks most relevant, but still failed to find an answer.
But both x and z are variables and defined as such
x = cp.Variable(N)
z = cp.Variable(N)
why only x needs a .value after?? Maybe it's a trivial question to experienced users, but I really don't get it. Thank you.
Update: two follow-up questions
Thanks to #MichalAdamaszek the first question above is clear: x.value didn't make sense here. A suggestion is using constraint_soc = [z == Q # x] + [ z[i]>=cp.quad_over_lin(t, x[i]) for i in range(N) ]
I have two following questions:
is it better to write the second of the soc constraint as : [ x[i]>=cp.quad_over_lin(t, z[i]) for i in range(N) ]? because in the question we only know that z[i] > 0 for sure. Or it doesn't matter at all in cvxpy? I tired both, both returned a similar optimal value.
I noticed that for the two constraints:
$x^TQx <= Np^2 $ and $ x_i z_i >= t^2 $
the quadratic terms were always intentionally split into two linear terms:
cp.quad_over_lin(Q_sqrt # x, p) <= N * p and z[i]>=cp.quad_over_lin(t, x[i]) respectively.
Is it because that in cvxpy, it is not allowed to have quadratic terms in (in)equality constraints? Is there an documentation to those basic rules?
Thank you.
Assuming the post-condition, how can I compute the weakest pre-condition of a program containing two statements?
For example :
a=x;
y = 0
{x = y + a}
Another example:
y = x;
y = x + x + y
{y = 3x ^ z> 0}
I tried to solve them but both questions resulted in pre-conditions or post-condition that are identical to the statement and I don't know if this is valid.
for example, the precondition of the last statement is "y=x" , thus it is the post condition of the preceding statement which is " y=x" as well
You can apply the rules of Hoare Logic here. Specifically, for the examples you have, you only need the rule for assignment:
{ P[E/x] } x = E { P }
Here, P[E/x] means take P and substitute (i.e. replace) all occurrences of x with E. For example, if P is x == 0 then P[0/x] gives 0 == 0.
To calculate the weakest precondition, you start from the end and work backwards. For your first example, we start with the last statement:
{ ??? } y = 0 { x == y + a }
The goal is to determine something suitable for ???. Applying our rule for assignment above, we can see that this is a solution:
{ x == 0 + a } y = 0 { x == y + a }
We can further simplify this to { x == a }. Then, we move on to address the statement before y = 0, and so on.
I'm having troubles to define the objective fucntion in a SMT problem with z3py.
Long story, short, I have to optimize the placing of smaller blocks inside a board that has fixed width but variable heigth.
I have an array of coordinates (represented by an array of integers of length 2) and a list of integers (representing the heigth of the block to place).
# [x,y] list of integer variables
P = [[Int("x_%s" % (i + 1)), Int("y_%s" % (i + 1))]
for i in range(blocks)]
y = [int(b) for a, b in data[2:]]
I defined the objective function like this:
obj= Int(max([P[i][1] + y[i] for i in range(blocks)]))
It calculates the max height of the board given the starting coordinate of the blocks and their heights.
I know it could be better, but I think the problem would be the same even with a different definition.
Anyway, if I run my code, the following error occurs on the line of the objective function:
" raise Z3Exception("Symbolic expressions cannot be cast to concrete Boolean values.") "
While debugging I've seen that is P[i][1] that gives an error and I think it's because the program reads "y_i + 3" (for example) and they can't be added togheter.
Point is: it's obvious that the objective function depends on the variables of the problem, so how can I get rid of this error? Is there another place where I should define the objective function so it waits to have the P array instantiated before doing anything?
Full code:
from z3 import *
from math import ceil
width = 8
blocks = 4
x = [3,3,5,5]
y = [3,5,3,5]
height = ceil(sum([x[i] * y[i] for i in range(blocks)]) / width) + 1
# [blocks x 2] list of integer variables
P = [[Int("x_%s" % (i + 1)), Int("y_%s" % (i + 1))]
for i in range(blocks)]
# value/ domain constraint
values = [And(0 <= P[i][0], P[i][0] <= width - 1, 0 <= P[i][1], P[i][1] <= height - 1)
for i in range(blocks)]
obj = Int(max([P[i][1] + y[i] for i in range(blocks)]))
board_problem = values # other constraints I've not included for brevity
o = Optimize()
o.add(board_problem)
o.minimize(obj)
if (o.check == 'unsat'):
print("The problem is unsatisfiable")
else:
print("Solved")
The problem here is that you're calling Python's max on symbolic values, which is not designed to work for symbolic expressions. Instead, define a symbolic version of max and use that:
# Return maximum of a vector; error if empty
def symMax(vs):
m = vs[0]
for v in vs[1:]:
m = If(v > m, v, m)
return m
obj = symMax([P[i][1] + y[i] for i in range(blocks)])
With this change your program will go through and print Solved when run.
I was asked to calculate the Pi number using the Leibniz formula for Pi with a given accuracy (eps).
The formula looks like this:
Initially, I wrote the following code:
fun main() {
val eps = 0.005
var n = 2
var r = row(n) // current row
var r0 = row(n-1)
var s = r0 + r
while (Math.abs(r) > eps) {
n++
r = row(n)
s += r
}
println(r.toString() + " <-- Leibniz(" + n.toString() + ")")
println(Math.abs(s*4).toString() + " <-- our evaluation with eps")
println(Math.PI.toString() + " <-- real Pi")
println((Math.abs(s*4)) in (Math.PI-eps..Math.PI+eps))
}
fun row(n: Int) = ((Math.pow(-1.0, n.toDouble()))/(2*n-1))
Then I found out that it doesn't work correctly, because
println((Math.abs(s*4)) in (Math.PI-eps..Math.PI+eps)) printed false.
I went deeper, made a debug, and realised that if went with
while (Math.abs(r) > eps/2)
over
while (Math.abs(r) > eps) everything works fine.
Could someone please provide any explanation on what I did wrong or why I have to divide eps by 2 if that is correct.
Thanks.
Each term r_i in that series is summed up to PI with a factor of 4 because sum(r_0, .., r_n) = PI/4. So of course, when you stop at the first r_i <= eps that only means that sum(r_0, ..., r_(i-1)) has an accuray of eps, ie it is somewhere in between [PI/4 - eps/2, PI/4 + eps/2]. But PI it self is 4*sum thus the accuracy is of course 4*eps ie the approximation lies somewhere inbetween [PI-2*eps ,PI+2*eps]
For your value of eps = 0.005:
The first r_100 = 0.00497512... is the first r <= eps
sum(r0, ..., r_99) = 0.782829, so PI at that point would be approximated as 3.1315929
EDIT
Also you are actually calculating -PI because are flipping the sign of each term in the series. So what you call r0 in your code (it should rather be called r1 because it's the result of row(1)) is -1 instead of +1
When you check Math.abs(r) > eps you're looking at the size of the n-th element of the series.
The distance of your current approximation from PI is the sum of all the terms in the series after that one.
As far as I know the relationship between the size of the n-th element of a convergent series and how good of an approximation you have depends on the specific series you are summing.
I've written some code below to check if two line segments intersect and if they do to tell me where. As input I have the (x,y) coordinates of both ends of each line. It appeared to be working correctly but now in the scenario where line A (532.87,787.79)(486.34,769.85) and line B (490.89,764.018)(478.98,783.129) it says they intersect at (770.136, 487.08) when the lines don't intersect at all.
Has anyone any idea what is incorrect in the below code?
double dy[2], dx[2], m[2], b[2];
double xint, yint, xi, yi;
WsqT_Location_Message *location_msg_ptr = OPC_NIL;
FIN (intersect (<args>));
dy[0] = y2 - y1;
dx[0] = x2 - x1;
dy[1] = y4 - y3;
dx[1] = x4 - x3;
m[0] = dy[0] / dx[0];
m[1] = dy[1] / dx[1];
b[0] = y1 - m[0] * x1;
b[1] = y3 - m[1] * x3;
if (m[0] != m[1])
{
//slopes not equal, compute intercept
xint = (b[0] - b[1]) / (m[1] - m[0]);
yint = m[1] * xint + b[1];
//is intercept in both line segments?
if ((xint <= max(x1, x2)) && (xint >= min(x1, x2)) &&
(yint <= max(y1, y2)) && (yint >= min(y1, y2)) &&
(xint <= max(x3, x4)) && (xint >= min(x3, x4)) &&
(yint <= max(y3, y4)) && (yint >= min(y3, y4)))
{
if (xi && yi)
{
xi = xint;
yi = yint;
location_msg_ptr = (WsqT_Location_Message*)op_prg_mem_alloc(sizeof(WsqT_Location_Message));
location_msg_ptr->current_latitude = xi;
location_msg_ptr->current_longitude = yi;
}
FRET(location_msg_ptr);
}
}
FRET(location_msg_ptr);
}
There is an absolutely great and simple theory about lines and their intersections that is based on adding an extra dimensions to your points and lines. In this theory a line can be created from two points with one line of code and the point of line intersection can be calculated with one line of code. Moreover, points at the Infinity and lines at the Infinity can be represented with real numbers.
You probably heard about homogeneous representation when a point [x, y] is represented as [x, y, 1] and the line ax+by+c=0 is represented as [a, b, c]?
The transitioning to Cartesian coordinates for a general homogeneous representation of a point [x, y, w] is [x/w, y/w]. This little trick makes all the difference including representation of lines at infinity (e.g. [1, 0, 0]) and making line representation look similar to point one. This introduces a GREAT symmetry into formulas for numerous line/point manipulation and is an
absolute MUST to use in programming. For example,
It is very easy to find line intersections through vector product
p = l1xl2
A line can be created from two points is a similar way:
l=p1xp2
In the code of OpenCV it it just:
line = p1.cross(p2);
p = line1.cross(line2);
Note that there are no marginal cases (such as division by zero or parallel lines) to be concerned with here. My point is, I suggest to rewrite your code to take advantage of this elegant theory about lines and points.
Finally, if you don't use openCV, you can use a 3D point class and create your own cross product function similar to this one:
template<typename _Tp> inline Point3_<_Tp> Point3_<_Tp>::cross(const Point3_<_Tp>& pt) const
{
return Point3_<_Tp>(y*pt.z - z*pt.y, z*pt.x - x*pt.z, x*pt.y - y*pt.x);
}