I'm trying to evaluate a Taylor polynomial for the natural logarithm, ln(x), centred at a=1 in Python. I'm using the series given on Wikipedia however when I try a simple calculation like ln(2.7) instead of giving me something close to 1 it gives me a gigantic number. Is there something obvious that I'm doing wrong?
def log(x):
n=1000
s=0
for i in range(1,n):
s += ((-1)**(i+1))*((x-1)**i)/i
return s
Using the Taylor series:
Gives the result:
EDIT: If anyone stumbles across this an alternative way to evaluate the natural logarithm of some real number is to use numerical integration (e.g. Riemann sum, midpoint rule, trapezoid rule, Simpson's rule etc) to evaluate the integral that is often used to define the natural logarithm;
That series is only valid when x is <= 1. For x>1 you will need a different series.
For example this one (found here):
def ln(x): return 2*sum(((x-1)/(x+1))**i/i for i in range(1,100,2))
output:
ln(2.7) # 0.9932517730102833
math.log(2.7) # 0.9932517730102834
Note that it takes a lot more than 100 terms to converge as x gets bigger (up to a point where it'll become impractical)
You can compensate for that by adding the logarithms of smaller factors of x:
def ln(x):
if x > 2: return ln(x/2) + ln(2) # ln(x) = ln(x/2 * 2) = ln(x/2) + ln(2)
return 2*sum(((x-1)/(x+1))**i/i for i in range(1,1000,2))
which is something you can also do in your Taylor based function to support x>1:
def log(x):
if x > 1: return log(x/2) - log(0.5) # ln(2) = -ln(1/2)
n=1000
s=0
for i in range(1,n):
s += ((-1)**(i+1))*((x-1)**i)/i
return s
These series also take more terms to converge when x gets closer to zero so you may want to work them in the other direction as well to keep the actual value to compute between 0.5 and 1:
def log(x):
if x > 1: return log(x/2) - log(0.5) # ln(x/2 * 2) = ln(x/2) + ln(2)
if x < 0.5: return log(2*x) + log(0.5) # ln(x*2 / 2) = ln(x*2) - ln(2)
...
If performance is an issue, you'll want to store ln(2) or log(0.5) somewhere and reuse it instead of computing it on every call
for example:
ln2 = None
def ln(x):
if x <= 2:
return 2*sum(((x-1)/(x+1))**i/i for i in range(1,10000,2))
global ln2
if ln2 is None: ln2 = ln(2)
n2 = 0
while x>2: x,n2 = x/2,n2+1
return ln2*n2 + ln(x)
The program is correct, but the Mercator series has the following caveat:
The series converges to the natural logarithm (shifted by 1) whenever −1 < x ≤ 1.
The series diverges when x > 1, so you shouldn't expect a result close to 1.
The python function math.frexp(x) can be used to advantage here to modify the problem so that the taylor series is working with a value close to one. math.frexp(x) is described as:
Return the mantissa and exponent of x as the pair (m, e). m is a float
and e is an integer such that x == m * 2**e exactly. If x is zero,
returns (0.0, 0), otherwise 0.5 <= abs(m) < 1. This is used to “pick
apart” the internal representation of a float in a portable way.
Using math.frexp(x) should not be regarded as "cheating" because it is presumably implemented just by accessing the bit fields in the underlying binary floating point representation. It isn't absolutely guaranteed that the representation of floats will be IEEE 754 binary64, but as far as I know every platform uses this. sys.float_info can be examined to find out the actual representation details.
Much like the other answer does you can use the standard logarithmic identities as follows: Let m, e = math.frexp(x). Then log(x) = log(m * 2e) = log(m) + e * log(2). log(2) can be precomputed to full precision ahead of time and is just a constant in the program. Here is some code illustrating this to compute the two similar taylor series approximations to log(x). The number of terms in each series was determined by trial and error rather than rigorous analysis.
taylor1 implements log(1 + x) = x1 - (1/2) * x2 + (1/3) * x3 ...
taylor2 implements log(x) = 2 * [t + (1/3) * t3 + (1/5) * t5 ...], where t = (x - 1) / (x + 1).
import math
import struct
_LOG_OF_2 = 0.69314718055994530941723212145817656807550013436025
def taylor1(x):
m, e = math.frexp(x)
log_of_m = 0
num_terms = 36
sign = 1
m_minus1_power = m - 1
for k in range(1, num_terms + 1):
log_of_m += sign * m_minus1_power / k
sign = -sign
m_minus1_power *= m - 1
return log_of_m + e * _LOG_OF_2
def taylor2(x):
m, e = math.frexp(x)
num_terms = 12
half_log_of_m = 0
t = (m - 1) / (m + 1)
t_squared = t * t
t_power = t
denominator = 1
for k in range(num_terms):
half_log_of_m += t_power / denominator
denominator += 2
t_power *= t_squared
return 2 * half_log_of_m + e * _LOG_OF_2
This seems to work well over most of the domain of log(x), but as x approaches 1 (and log(x) approaches 0) the transformation provided by x = m * 2e actually produces a less accurate result. So a better algorithm would first check if x is close to 1, say abs(x-1) < .5, and if so the just compute the taylor series approximation directly on x.
My answer is just using the Taylor series for In(x). I really hope this helps. It is simple and straight to the point.
enter image description here
Closed. This question needs details or clarity. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Add details and clarify the problem by editing this post.
Closed 2 years ago.
Improve this question
I'm a beginner in programming and I'm looking for a nice idea how to generate three integers that satisfy a condition.
Example:
We are given n = 30, and we've been asked to generate three integers a, b and c, so that 7*a + 5*b + 3*c = n.
I tried to use for loops, but it takes too much time and I have a maximum testing time of 1000 ms.
I'm using Python 3.
My attempt:
x = int(input())
c = []
k = []
w = []
for i in range(x):
for j in range(x):
for h in range(x):
if 7*i + 5*j + 3*h = x:
c.append(i)
k.append(j)
w.append(h)
if len(c) == len(k) == len(w)
print(-1)
else:
print(str(k[0]) + ' ' + str(c[0]) + ' ' + str(w[0]))
First, let me note that your task is underspecified in at least two respects:
The allowed range of the generated values is not specified. In particular, you don't specify whether the results may include negative integers.
The desired distribution of the generated values is not specified.
Normally, if not specified, one might assume that a uniform distribution on the set of possible solutions to the equation was expected (since it is, in a certain sense, the most random possible distribution on a given set). But a (discrete) uniform distribution is only possible if the solution set is finite, which it won't be if the range of results is unrestricted. (In particular, if (a, b, c) is a solution, then so is (a, b + 3k, c − 5k) for any integer k.) So if we interpret the task as asking for a uniform distribution with unlimited range, it's actually impossible!
On the other hand, if we're allowed to choose any distribution and range, the task becomes trivial: just make the generator always return a = −n, b = n, c = n. Clearly this is a solution to the equation (since −7n + 5n + 3n = (−7 + 5 + 3)n = 1n), and a degenerate distribution that assigns all probability mass to single point is still a valid probability distribution!
If you wanted a slightly less degenerate solution, you could pick a random integer k (using any distribution of your choice) and return a = −n, b = n + 3k, c = n − 5k. As noted above, this is also a solution to the equation for any k. Of course, this distribution is still somewhat degenerate, since the value of a is fixed.
If you want to let all return values be at least somewhat random, you could also pick a random h and return a = −n + h, b = n − 2h + 3k and c = n + h − 5k. Again, this is guaranteed to be a valid solution for any h and k, since it clearly satisfies the equation for h = k = 0, and it's also easy to see that increasing or decreasing either h or k will leave the value of the left-hand side of the equation unchanged.
In fact, it can be proved that this method can generate all possible solutions to the equation, and that each solution will correspond to a unique (h, k) pair! (One fairly intuitive way to see this is to plot the solutions in 3D space and observe that they form a regular lattice of points on a 2D plane, and that the vectors (+1, −2, +1) and (0, +3, −5) span this lattice.) If we pick h and k from some distribution that (at least in theory) assigns a non-zero probability to every integer, then we'll have a non-zero probability of returning any valid solution. So, at least for one somewhat reasonable interpretation of the task (unbounded range, any distribution with full support) the following code should solve the task efficiently:
from random import gauss
def random_solution(n):
h = int(gauss(0, 1000)) # any distribution with full support on the integers will do
k = int(gauss(0, 1000))
return (-n + h, n - 2*h + 3*k, n + h - 5*k)
If the range of possible values is restricted, the problem becomes a bit trickier. On the positive side, if all values are bounded below (or above), then the set of possible solutions is finite, and so a uniform distribution exists on it. On the flip side, efficiently sampling this uniform distribution is not trivial.
One possible approach, which you've used yourself, is to first generate all possible solutions (assuming there's a finite number of them) and then sample from the list of solutions. We can do the solution generation fairly efficiently like this:
find all possible values of a for which the equation might have a solution,
for each such a, find all possible values of b for which there still have a solution,
for each such (a, b) pair, solve the equation for c and check if it's valid (i.e. an integer within the specified range), and
if yes, add (a, b, c) to the set of solutions.
The tricky part is step 2, where we want to calculate the range of possible b values. For this, we can make use of the observation that, for a given a, setting c to its smallest allowed value and solving the equation gives an upper bound for b (and vice versa).
In particular, solving the equation for a, b and c respectively, we get:
a = (n − 5b − 3c) / 7
b = (n − 7a − 3c) / 5
c = (n − 7a − 5b) / 3
Given lower bounds on some of the values, we can use these solutions to compute corresponding upper bounds on the others. For example, the following code will generate all non-negative solutions efficiently (and can be easily modified to use a lower bound other than 0, if needed):
def all_nonnegative_solutions(n):
a_min = b_min = c_min = 0
a_max = (n - 5*b_min - 3*c_min) // 7
for a in range(a_min, a_max + 1):
b_max = (n - 7*a - 3*c_min) // 5
for b in range(b_min, b_max + 1):
if (n - 7*a - 5*b) % 3 == 0:
c = (n - 7*a - 5*b) // 3
yield (a, b, c)
We can then store the solutions in a list or a tuple and sample from that list:
from random import choice
solutions = tuple(all_nonnegative_solutions(30))
a, b, c = choice(solutions)
Ps. Apparently Python's random.choice is not smart enough to use reservoir sampling to sample from an arbitrary iterable, so we do need to store the full list of solutions even if we only want to sample from it once. Or, of course, we could always implement our own sampler:
def reservoir_choice(iterable):
r = None
n = 0
for x in iterable:
n += 1
if randrange(n) == 0:
r = x
return r
a, b, c = reservoir_choice(all_nonnegative_solutions(30))
BTW, we could make the all_nonnegative_solutions function above a bit more efficient by observing that the (n - 7*a - 5*b) % 3 == 0 condition (which checks whether c = (n − 7a − 5b) / 3 is an integer, and thus a valid solution) is true for every third value of b. Thus, if we first calculated the smallest value of b that satisfies the condition for a given a (which can be done with a bit of modular arithmetic), we could iterate over b with a step size of 3 starting from that minimum value and skip the divisibility check entirely. I'll leave implementing that optimization as an exercise.
import numpy as np
def generate_answer(n: int, low_limit:int, high_limit: int):
while True:
a = np.random.randint(low_limit, high_limit + 1, 1)[0]
b = np.random.randint(low_limit, high_limit + 1, 1)[0]
c = (n - 7 * a - 5 * b) / 3.0
if int(c) == c and low_limit <= c <= high_limit:
break
return a, b, int(c)
if __name__ == "__main__":
n = 30
ans = generate_answer(low_limit=-5, high_limit=50, n=n)
assert ans[0] * 7 + ans[1] * 5 + ans[2] * 3 == n
print(ans)
If you select two of the numbers a, b, c, you know the third. In this case, I randomize ints for a, b, and I find c by c = (n - 7 * a - 5 * b) / 3.0.
Make sure c is an integer, and in the allowed limits, and we are done.
If it is not, randomize again.
If you want to generate all possibilities,
def generate_all_answers(n: int, low_limit:int, high_limit: int):
results = []
for a in range(low_limit, high_limit + 1):
for b in range(low_limit, high_limit + 1):
c = (n - 7 * a - 5 * b) / 3.0
if int(c) == c and low_limit <= c <= high_limit:
results.append((a, b, int(c)))
return results
If third-party libraries are allowed, you can use SymPy's diophantine.diop_linear linear Diophantine equations solver:
from sympy.solvers.diophantine.diophantine import diop_linear
from sympy import symbols
from numpy.random import randint
n = 30
N = 8 # Number of solutions needed
# Unknowns
a, b, c = symbols('a, b, c', integer=True)
# Coefficients
x, y, z = 7, 5, 3
# Parameters of parametric equation of solution
t_0, t_1 = symbols('t_0, t_1', integer=True)
solution = diop_linear(x * a + y * b + z * c - n)
if not (None in solution):
for s in range(N):
# -10000 and 10000 (max and min for t_0 and t_1)
t_sub = [(t_0, randint(-10000, 10000)), (t_1, randint(-10000, 10000))]
a_val, b_val, c_val = map(lambda t : t.subs(t_sub), solution)
print('Solution #%d' % (s + 1))
print('a =', a_val, ', b =', b_val, ', c =', c_val)
else:
print('no solutions')
Output (random):
Solution #1
a = -141 , b = -29187 , c = 48984
Solution #2
a = -8532 , b = -68757 , c = 134513
Solution #3
a = 5034 , b = 30729 , c = -62951
Solution #4
a = 7107 , b = 76638 , c = -144303
Solution #5
a = 4587 , b = 23721 , c = -50228
Solution #6
a = -9294 , b = -106269 , c = 198811
Solution #7
a = -1572 , b = -43224 , c = 75718
Solution #8
a = 4956 , b = 68097 , c = -125049
Why your solution can't cope with large values of n
You may understand that everything in a for loop with a range of i, will run i times. So it will multiply the time taken by i.
For example, let's pretend (to keep things simple) that this runs in 4 milliseconds:
if 7*a + 5*b + 3*c = n:
c.append(a)
k.append(b)
w.append(c)
then this will run in 4×n milliseconds:
for c in range(n):
if 7*a + 5*b + 3*c = n:
c.append(a)
k.append(b)
w.append(c)
Approximately:
n = 100 would take 0.4 seconds
n = 250 would take 1 second
n = 15000 would take 60 seconds
If you put that inside a for loop over a range of n then the whole thing will be repeated n times. I.e.
for b in range(n):
for c in range(n):
if 7*a + 5*b + 3*c = n:
c.append(a)
k.append(b)
w.append(c)
will take 4n² milliseconds.
n = 30 would take 4 seconds
n = 50 would take 10 seconds
n = 120 would take 60 seconds
Putting it in a third for-loop will take 4n³ milliseconds.
n = 10 would take 4 seconds
n = 14 would take 10 seconds.
n = 24 would take 60 seconds.
Now, what if you halved the original if to 2 milliseconds? n would be able to increase by 15000 in the first case... and 23 in the last case. The lesson here is that fewer for-loops is usually much more important than speeding up what's inside them. As you can see in Gulzar's answer part 2, there are only two for loops which makes a big difference. (This only applies if the loops are inside each other; if they are just one after another you don't have the multiplication problem.)
from my perspective, the last number of the three is never a random number. let say you generate a and b first then c is never a random because it should be calculated from the equation
n = 7*a + 5*b + 3*c
c = (7*a + 5*b - n) / -3
this means that we need to generate two random values (a,b)
that 7*a + 5*b - n is divisible by 3
import random
n = 30;
max = 1000000;
min = -1000000;
while True:
a = random.randint(min , max);
b = random.randint(min , max);
t = (7*a) + (5*b) - n;
if (t % 3 == 0) :
break;
c = (t/-3);
print("A = " + str(a));
print("B = " + str(b));
print("C = " + str(c));
print("7A + 5B + 3C =>")
print("(7 * " + str(a) + ") + (5 * " + str(b) + ") + (3 * " + str(c) + ") = ")
print((7*a) + (5*b) + (3*c));
REPL
How do I calculate and print out the value of ln(1+x) using the series expansion:
ln(1+x) expansion
using a while loop and including terms whose magnitude is greater than 10-8. Print out the sum to each number of terms to show the result converging.
So far this is my code but it calculates lnsum2 to be a very large number and hence never ends.
n=1
lnsum2= np.cumsum((((-1)**(n+1)*(x**n)/n)))
while lnsum2>10**-8:
n+=1
lnsum2 = lnsum2 + np.cumsum((((-1)**(n+1)*(x**n)/n)))
else: print('The sum of terms greater than 10^-8 is:', lnsum2)
Many thanks.
Right I've now got code that works using a while loop. Thanks for all the help!!
Maybe it's a bit over-kill, but here's a nice solution using sympy to evaluate infinite series.
from sympy.abc import k
from sympy import Sum, oo as inf
import math
x = 0.5
result = Sum(
(
x**(2*k-1) /
(2*k-1)
) - (
x**(2*k) / (2*k)
),
(k, 1, inf)).doit()
#print(result) # 0.5*hyper((0.5, 1), (3/2,), 0.25) - 0.14384103622589
print(float(result)) # 0.4054651081081644
print(math.log(x+1, math.e)) # 0.4054651081081644
EDIT:
I think the problem with your original code is that you haven't quite implemented the series (if I'm understanding the figure in your question correctly). It looks like the series you're trying to implement can be represented as
x^(2n-1) x^(2n)
( + ---------- - -------- ... for n = 1 to n = infinity )
2n-1 2n
whereas your code actually implements this series
(-1)^2 * (x * 1) ( (-1)^(n+1) * (x^n) )
----------------- + ( -------------------- ... for n = 2 to n = infinity )
1 ( n )
EDIT 2:
If you really have to do the iterations yourself, rather than using sympy, here is code which works:
import math
x = 0.5
n=0
sums = []
while True:
n += 1
this_sum = (x**(2*n-1) / (2*n-1)) - (x**(2*n) / (2*n))
if abs(this_sum) < 1e-8:
break
sums.append(this_sum)
lnsum = sum(sums)
print('The sum of terms greater than 10^-8 is:\t\t', lnsum)
print('math.log yields:\t\t\t\t', math.log(x+1, math.e))
Output:
The sum of terms greater than 10^-8 is: 0.4054651046035002
math.log yields: 0.4054651081081644
I have a math function whose output is defined by two variables, x and y.
The function is e^(x^3 + y^2).
I want to calculate every possible integer combination between 1 and some defined integer for x and y, and place them in an array so that each output is aligned with the cooresponding x value and y value index. So something like:
given:
x = 3
y = 5
output would be an array like this:
f(1,1) f(1,2) f(1,3)
f(2,1) f(2,2) f(2,3)
f(3,1) f(3,2) f(3,3)
f(4,1) f(4,2) f(4,3)
f(5,1) f(5,2) f(5,3)
I feel like this is an easy problem to tackle but I have limited knowledge. The code that follows is the best description.
import math
import numpy as np
equation = math.exp(x**3 + y**2)
#start at 1, not zero
i = 1
j = 1
#i want an array output
output = []
#function
def shape_f (i,j):
shape = []
output.append(shape)
while i < x + 1:
while j < y +1:
return math.exp(i**3 + j**2)
#increase counter
i = i +1
j = j +1
print output
I've gotten a blank array recently but I have also gotten one value (int instead of an array)
I am not sure if you have an indentation error, but it looks like you never do anything with the output of the function shape_f. You should define your equation as a function, rather than expression assignment. Then you can make a function that populates a list of lists as you describes.
import math
def equation(x, y):
return math.exp(x**3 + y**2)
def make_matrix(x_max, y_max, x_min=1, y_min=1):
out = []
for i in range(x_min, x_max+1):
row = []
for j in range(y_min, y_max+1):
row.append(equation(i, j))
out.append(row)
return out
matrix = make_matrix(3, 3)
matrix
# returns:
[[7.38905609893065, 148.4131591025766, 22026.465794806718],
[8103.083927575384, 162754.79141900392, 24154952.7535753],
[1446257064291.475, 29048849665247.426, 4311231547115195.0]]
We can do this very simply with numpy.
First, we use np.arange to generate a range of values from 0 (to simplify indexing) to a maximum value for both x and y. We can perform exponentiation, in a vectorised manner, to get the values of x^3 and y^2.
Next, we can apply np.add on the outer product of x^3 and y^3 to get every possible combination thereof. The final step is taking the natural exponential of the result:
x_max = 3
y_max = 5
x = np.arange(x_max + 1) ** 3
y = np.arange(y_max + 1) ** 2
result = np.e ** np.add.outer(x, y)
print(result[2, 3]) # e^(2 ** 3 + 3 ** 2)
Output:
24154952.753575277
A trivial solution would be to use the broadcasting feature of numpy with the exp function:
x = 3
y = 5
i = np.arange(y).reshape(-1, 1) + 1
j = np.arange(x).reshape(1, -1) + 1
result = np.exp(j**3 + y**2)
The reshape operations make i into a column with y elements and j into a row with x elements. Exponentiation does not change those shapes. Broadcasting happens when you add the two arrays together. The unit dimensions in one array get expanded to the corresponding dimension in the other. The result is a y-by-x matrix.
I've recently gotten into Python, and I couldn't come up with any things to make. So i decided i'd port all of my Project Euler stuff over to Python just to have something to do. But basically, the code below is supposed to find the product of a, b, and c, where a + b + c = 1000. (Pythagorean triplet)
from math import sqrt
def solve():
product = 0
for a in range(1, 500):
for b in range(1, 500):
needed = sqrt(a*a + b*b)
if a + b + needed == 1000:
product = a * b * needed
return product
return product
print(solve())
This code produces the correct result, which is 31875000.0. I want it to return an integer, and not a floating point value. I tried doing
needed = round(sqrt(a*a + b*b))
but for some reason, this returns the number 498002, which is not even close to being the same number. I've also tried using Floor from the math library, but that also does the same thing, as well as int(). Is there something that I'm overlooking? Or is this a bug? Or what. I'm using Python 3.5 if that matters.
Because when you round() off, or even do int() to convert the sqrt() result to integer, you are losing precision, like in case of i being 2 and j being 499 , since i is so small , the sqrt of a^2 + b^2 would be something like - 499.0040079999358 - rounding that off would give 499 . And your program would wrongly assume this to be a triplet ,since 499 + 499 + 2 is 1000.
Instead of rounding the result of sqrt you should convert the product to integer before returning. Example -
from math import sqrt
def solve():
product = 0
for a in range(1, 500):
for b in range(1, 500):
needed = sqrt(a*a + b*b)
if a + b + needed == 1000:
product = a * b * needed
return int(product)
return product
print(solve())