We Keep Coding

Mathieu Characteristic Value

I was trying to obtain the Mathieu characteristic values for a specific problem. I do not have any problem obtaining them, and I have read the documentation from Scipy regarding these functions. The problem is that I know for a fact that the points I am obtaining are not right. My script to obtain the characteristic values I need is below:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.special import mathieu_a, mathieu_b, mathieu_cem, mathieu_sem
M = 1.0
g = 1.0
l = 1.0
h = 0.06
U0 = M * g * l
q = 4 * M * l**2 * U0 / h**2
def energy(n, q):
if n % 2 == 0:
return (h**2 / (8 * M * l**2)) * mathieu_a(n, q) + U0
else:
return (h**2 / (8 * M * l**2)) * mathieu_b(n + 1, q) + U0
n_list = np.arange(0, 80, 1)
e_n = [energy(i, q) for i in n_list]
plt.plot(n_list, e_n, '.')
The resulting plot of these values is this one. There is a zone where it appears to be "noise" or a numerical error, and I know that those jumps must not occur. In reality, around x= 40 to x > 40, the points should behave like a staircase of two consecutive points, similar to what can be seen between 70 < x < 80. And the values that x can take for this case are only positive integers.
I saw that the implementation of the Mathieu function has some problems, see here. But this was six years ago! In the answer to this question they use the NAG Library for Python, but it is not exactly open-source.
Is there a way I can still use these functions from Scipy without having this problem? Or is it related to the precision I am using to obtain the Mathieu characteristic value?

How to proof with Sympy that a given Cartesian equation can be written as a given polar equation

i have an assignment on sympy and am struggling with the following question:
"Prove with the help of Sympy that 4*(x2 + y2 -ax)3 = 27a2(x2+y2)2 can be written using r = 4a*cos(theta/3)3".
I have tried to substitute x = r*cos(theta) and y = r*sin(theta).
Then I tried sp.solveset(eq, r) but I only got a very longset of {}, nothing like the given polar equation.
Does anyone know how to do this (I can use sympy and numpy)?

The following code builds the equation from its left hand side and right hand side. Then the change of variables to polar coordinates is performed using substitution.
The resulting trigonometric expression is then simplified, and it turns out to be zero after simplification. So any pair/tuple (x,y)=(r*cos(theta),r*sin(theta)) is a solution.
from sympy import *
a,x,y,theta = symbols('a x y \Theta', real=True)
init_printing(use_latex=True)
lhs = 4 * (x**2 + y**2 - a*x) ** 3
rhs = 27 * a**2 * (x**2 + y**2)**2
f = lhs - rhs
r = 4 * a * cos(theta/3)**3
display(f,"----")
f = f.subs(x,r*cos(theta))
f = f.subs(y,r*sin(theta))
display(f,"----")
f1 = f
display(simplify(f))
# format for wolframalpha
t = symbols('t')
f1 = f1.subs(theta,t)
import re
f1 = re.sub("\*\*","^",str(f1))
print("----")
print("wolframalpha expression: solve ", str(f1)," over the reals")
To double-check this, at the end, a wolframalpha query is also generated, which confirms the solutions.

Iterative Binomial Update without Loop

Can this be done without a loop?
import numpy as np
n = 10
x = np.random.random(n+1)
a, b = 0.45, 0.55
for i in range(n):
x = a*x[:-1] + b*x[1:]
I came across this setup in another question. There it was a covered by a little obscure nomenclature. I guess it is related to Binomial options pricing model but don't quite understand the topic to be honest. I just was intrigued by the formula and this iterative update / shrinking of x and wondered if it can be done without a loop. But I can not wrap my head around it and I am not sure if this is even possible.
What makes me think that it might work is that this vatiaton
n = 10
a, b = 0.301201, 0.59692
x0 = 123
x = x0
for i in range(n):
x = a*x + b*x
# ~42
is actually just x0*(a + b)**n
print(np.allclose(x, x0*(a + b)**n))
# True

You are calculating:
sum( a ** (n - i) * b ** i * x[i] * choose(n, i) for 0 <= i <= n)
[That's meant to be pseudocode, not Python.] I'm not sure of the best way to convert that into Numpy.
choose(n, i) is n!/ (i! (n-i)!), not the numpy choose function.
Using #mathfux's comment, one can do
import numpy as np
from scipy.stats import binom
binomial = binom(p=p, n=n)
pmf = binomial(np.arange(n+1))
res = np.sum(x * pmf)
So
res = x.copy()
for i in range(n):
res = p*res[1:] + (p-1)*res[:-1]
is just the expected value of a binomial distributed random variable x.

Error using scicpy.integrate.odeint and sympy symbols

I'm trying to solve the following system: d²i/dt² + R'(i)/L di/dt + 1/LC i(t) = 1/L dE/dt as a set of coupled first order differential equations:
di/dt = k
dk/dt = 1/L dE/dt - R'(i)/L k - 1/LC i(t)
Here is the code I'm using:
import numpy as np
import sympy as sp
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import odeint
#Define model: x = [i , k]
def RLC(x , t):
i = sp.Symbol('i')
t = sp.Symbol('t')
#Data:
E = sp.ln(t + 1)
dE_dt = E.diff(t)
R1 = 1000 #1 kOhm
R2 = 100 #100 Ohm
R = R1 * i + R2 * i**3
dR_di = R.diff(i)
i = x[0]
k = x[1]
L = 10e-3 #10 mHy
C = 1.56e-6 #1.56 uF
#Model
di_dt = k
dk_dt = 1/L * dE_dt - dR_di/L * k - 1/(L*C) * i
dx_dt = np.array([di_dt , dk_dt])
return dx_dt
#init cond:
x0 = np.array([0 , 0])
#time points:
time = np.linspace(0, 30, 1000)
#solve ODE:
x = odeint(RLC, x0, time)
i = x[: , 0]
However, I get the following error: TypeError: Cannot cast array data from dtype('O') to dtype('float64') according to the rule 'safe'
So, I don't know if sympy and odeint don't work well together. Or maybe is it a problem because I defined t as sp.Symbol?

When you differentiate a function, you get a function back. So you need to evaluate it at a point in order to get a number. To evaluate a sympy expression, you could use .subs() but I prefer .replace() which feels more powerful (at least for me).
You must try and make every single variable have its own name in order to avoid confusion. For example, you replace the float input t with a sympy Symbol from the very beginning, thus losing the value of t. The variables x and i are also repeated in the outer scope which is not good practice if they mean different things.
The following should avoid confusion and hopefully produce something that you were expecting:
import numpy as np
import sympy as sp
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from scipy.integrate import odeint
# Define model: x = [i , k]
def RLC(x, t):
# define constants first
i = x[0]
k = x[1]
L = 10e-3 # 10 mHy
C = 1.56e-6 # 1.56 uF
R1 = 1000 # 1 kOhm
R2 = 100 # 100 Ohm
# define symbols (used to find derivatives)
i_symbol = sp.Symbol('i')
t_symbol = sp.Symbol('t')
# Data (differentiate and evaluate)
E = sp.ln(t_symbol + 1)
dE_dt = E.diff(t_symbol).replace(t_symbol, t)
R = R1 * i_symbol + R2 * i_symbol ** 3
dR_di = R.diff(i_symbol).replace(i_symbol, i)
# nothing should contain symbols from here onwards
# variables can however contain sympy expressions
# Model (convert sympy expressions to floats)
di_dt = float(k)
dk_dt = float(1 / L * dE_dt - dR_di / L * k - 1 / (L * C) * i)
dx_dt = np.array([di_dt, dk_dt])
return dx_dt
# init cond:
x0 = np.array([0, 0])
# time points:
time = np.linspace(0, 30, 1000)
# solve ODE:
solution = odeint(RLC, x0, time)
result = solution[:, 0]
print(result)
Just something to note: the value i = x[0] seemed to sit very close to 0 throughout each iteration. This means dR_di stayed basically at 1000 the whole time. I'm not familiar with odeint or your specific ODE, but hopefully this phenomenon is expected and isn't a problem.

fmin_slsqp returns initial guess finding the minimum of cubic spline

I am trying to find the minimum of a natural cubic spline. I have written the following code to find the natural cubic spline. (I have been given test data and have confirmed this method is correct.) Now I can not figure out how to find the minimum of this function.
This is the data
xdata = np.linspace(0.25, 2, 8)
ydata = 10**(-12) * np.array([1,2,1,2,3,1,1,2])
This is the function
import scipy as sp
import numpy as np
import math
from numpy.linalg import inv
from scipy.optimize import fmin_slsqp
from scipy.optimize import minimize, rosen, rosen_der
def phi(x, xd,yd):
n = len(xd)
h = np.array(xd[1:n] - xd[0:n-1])
f = np.divide(yd[1:n] - yd[0:(n-1)],h)
q = [0]*(n-2)
for i in range(n-2):
q[i] = 3*(f[i+1] - f[i])
A = np.zeros(((n-2),(n-2)))
#define A for j=0
A[0,0] = 2*(h[0] + h[1])
A[0,1] = h[1]
#define A for j = n-2
A[-1,-2] = h[-2]
A[-1,-1] = 2*(h[-2] + h[-1])
#define A for in the middle
for j in range(1,(n-3)):
A[j,j-1] = h[j]
A[j,j] = 2*(h[j] + h[j+1])
A[j,j+1] = h[j+1]
Ainv = inv(A)
B = Ainv.dot(q)
b = (n)*[0]
b[1:(n-1)] = B
# now we find a, b, c and d
a = [0]*(n-1)
c = [0]*(n-1)
d = [0]*(n-1)
s = [0]*(n-1)
for r in range(n-1):
a[r] = 1/(3*h[r]) * (b[r + 1] - b[r])
c[r] = f[r] - h[r]*((2*b[r] + b[r+1])/3)
d[r] = yd[r]
#solution 1 start
for m in range(n-1):
if xd[m] <= x <= xd[m+1]:
s = a[m]*(x - xd[m])**3 + b[m]*(x-xd[m])**2 + c[m]*(x-xd[m]) + d[m]
return(s)
#solution 1 end
I want to find the minimum on the domain of my xdata, so a fmin didn't work as you can not define bounds there. I tried both fmin_slsqp and minimize. They are not compatible with the phi function I wrote so I rewrote phi(x, xd,yd) and added an extra variable such that phi is phi(x, xd,yd, m). M indicates in which subfunction of the spline we are calculating a solution (from x_m to x_m+1). In the code we replaced #solution 1 by the following
# solution 2 start
return(a[m]*(x - xd[m])**3 + b[m]*(x-xd[m])**2 + c[m]*(x-xd[m]) + d[m])
# solution 2 end
To find the minimum in a domain x_m to x_(m+1) we use the following code: (we use an instance where m=0, so x from 0.25 to 0.5. The initial guess is 0.3)
fmin_slsqp(phi, x0 = 0.3, bounds=([(0.25,0.5)]), args=(xdata, ydata, 0))
What I would then do (I know it's crude), is iterate this with a for loop to find the minimum on all subdomains and then take the overall minimum. However, the function fmin_slsqp constantly returns the initial guess as the minimum. So there is something wrong, which I do not know how to fix. If you could help me this would be greatly appreciated. Thanks for reading this far.

When I plot your function phi and the data you feed in, I see that its range is of the order of 1e-12. However, fmin_slsqp is unable to handle that level of precision and fails to find any change in your objective.
The solution I propose is scaling the return of your objective by the same order of precision like so:
return(s*1e12)
Then you get good results.
>>> sol = fmin_slsqp(phi, x0=0.3, bounds=([(0.25, 0.5)]), args=(xdata, ydata))
>>> print(sol)
Optimization terminated successfully. (Exit mode 0)
Current function value: 1.0
Iterations: 2
Function evaluations: 6
Gradient evaluations: 2
[ 0.25]