I am writing this numerical method formula of trapezium rule for double integrals.
Note that hx = (b-a)/nx, hy = (d-c)/ny to get the interval widths and xj = a+hxj and yi = c+hyi
A few problems in your code:
First yes your indentation here is off (but I assume it's from not copying it across well since this would lead to an error rather than a wrong value). In the future make sure the indentation in your question corresponds to what you have at on your own computer before posting...
Then a term should be added within a for if and only if it's in the corresponding sum... Here you put everything within the double for loop which corresponds to having all the terms in the double sum.
Finally range(1,n) already stops at n-1 only so you want to remove those -1 in the ranges.
In the end:
def double_integral(f,a,b,c,d,nx,ny):
hx = (b-a)/nx
hy = (d-c)/ny
first_term = (f(a,c)+f(a,d)+f(b,c)+f(b,d))
i_sum = 0
for i in range(1,ny):
i_sum += f(a,c+i*hy)+f(b, c+i*hy)
j_sum = 0
for j in range(1,nx):
j_sum += f(a+j*hx,c)+f(a+j*hx,d)
ij_sum = 0
for i in range(1,ny):
for j in range(1,nx):
ij_sum += f(a+j*hx,c+i*hy)
integral = (first_term/4 + i_sum/2 + j_sum/2 + ij_sum) * hx * hy
return integral
def t(x,y):
return x*(y**(2))
print(double_integral(t,0,2,0,1,10,10))
0.6700000000000003
You'll get closer to 2/3 by choosing numbers of steps larger than 10...
And you can be more pythonic by using sum comprehension:
def double_integral(f,a,b,c,d,nx,ny):
hx = (b-a)/nx
hy = (d-c)/ny
first_term = (f(a,c)+f(a,d)+f(b,c)+f(b,d))
i_sum = sum(f(a,c+i*hy)+f(b, c+i*hy) for i in range (1,ny))
j_sum = sum(f(a+j*hx,c)+f(a+j*hx,d) for j in range(1,nx))
ij_sum = sum(f(a+j*hx,c+i*hy) for i in range (1,ny) for j in range(1,nx))
integral = (first_term/4 + i_sum/2 + j_sum/2 + ij_sum) * hx * hy
return integral
Related
Given two sequences A and B of the same length: one is strictly increasing, the other is strictly decreasing.
It is required to find an index i such that the absolute value of the difference between A[i] and B[i] is minimal. If there are several such indices, the answer is the smallest of them. The input sequences are standard Python arrays. It is guaranteed that they are of the same length. Efficiency requirements: Asymptotic complexity: no more than the power of the logarithm of the length of the input sequences.
I have implemented index lookup using the golden section method, but I am confused by the use of floating point arithmetic. Is it possible to somehow improve this algorithm so as not to use it, or can you come up with a more concise solution?
import random
import math
def peak(A,B):
def f(x):
return abs(A[x]-B[x])
phi_inv = 1 / ((math.sqrt(5) + 1) / 2)
def cal_x1(left,right):
return right - (round((right-left) * phi_inv))
def cal_x2(left,right):
return left + (round((right-left) * phi_inv))
left, right = 0, len(A)-1
x1, x2 = cal_x1(left, right), cal_x2(left,right)
while x1 < x2:
if f(x1) > f(x2):
left = x1
x1 = x2
x2 = cal_x1(x1,right)
else:
right = x2
x2 = x1
x1 = cal_x2(left,x2)
if x1 > 1 and f(x1-2) <= f(x1-1): return x1-2
if x1+2 < len(A) and f(x1+2) < f(x1+1): return x1+2
if x1 > 0 and f(x1-1) <= f(x1): return x1-1
if x1+1 < len(A) and f(x1+1) < f(x1): return x1+1
return x1
#value check
def make_arr(inv):
x = set()
while len(x) != 1000:
x.add(random.randint(-10000,10000))
x = sorted(list(x),reverse = inv)
return x
x = make_arr(0)
y = make_arr(1)
needle = 1000000
c = 0
for i in range(1000):
if abs(x[i]-y[i]) < needle:
c = i
needle = abs(x[i]-y[i])
print(c)
print(peak(x,y))
Approach
The poster asks about alternative, simpler solutions to posted code.
The problem is a variant of Leetcode Problem 852, where the goal is to find the peak index in a moutain array. We convert to a peak, rather than min, by computing the negative of the abolute difference. Our aproach is to modify this Python solution to the Leetcode problem.
Code
def binary_search(x, y):
''' Mod of https://walkccc.me/LeetCode/problems/0852/ to use function'''
def f(m):
' Absoute value of difference at index m of two arrays '
return -abs(x[m] - y[m]) # Make negative so we are looking for a peak
# peak using binary search
l = 0
r = len(arr) - 1
while l < r:
m = (l + r) // 2
if f(m) < f(m + 1): # check if increasing
l = m + 1
else:
r = m # was decreasing
return l
Test
def linear_search(A, B):
' Linear Search Method '
values = [abs(ai-bi) for ai, bi in zip(A, B)]
return values.index(min(values)) # linear search
def make_arr(inv):
random.seed(10) # added so we can repeat with the same data
x = set()
while len(x) != 1000:
x.add(random.randint(-10000,10000))
x = sorted(list(x),reverse = inv)
return x
# Create data
x = make_arr(0)
y = make_arr(1)
# Run search methods
print(f'Linear Search Solution {linear_search(x, y)}')
print(f'Golden Section Search Solution {peak(x, y)}') # posted code
print(f'Binary Search Solution {binary_search(x, y)}')
Output
Linear Search Solution 499
Golden Section Search Solution 499
Binary Search Solution 499
I have been writing code for a module I am making for my Discord Bot. I have been trying not to use any module as it is not helping in in importing stuff. So I thought I should write the code myself for both of them.
The problem here is that I don't really know how do we make them. I couldn't find them anywhere on the net as everywhere I only saw the use of math module which I don't want to use.
I don't know how do I work with them, so I want some help.
Thank You! :)
Using Taylor expansion you get an approximation up to the desired precision.
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/tayser.html
def pow(base, exponent):
return base ** exponent
def faktorial(n):
value = float(1)
for i in range(1, n+1):
value = value * i
return value
def cos(x):
x = x * 3.14/180
value = 1
sign = -1
n = 200 # precision
i = 2
while i < n:
value = value + (pow(x, i)/faktorial(i) * sign)
i = i + 2
sign = sign * -1
return value
def sin(x):
x = x * 3.14/180
value = x
sign = -1
n = 200 # precision
i = 3
while i < n:
value = value + (pow(x, i)/faktorial(i) * sign)
i = i + 2
sign = sign * -1
return value
pi = 3.1415926535897932384626433832795028841971 # Value of constant pi
def f(n): # Factorial Function
if n == 1 or n == 0:
return 1
else:
return n * f(n - 1)
def deg(x):
rad = x * pi/180
return rad
def sin(x): # Taylor Expansion of sinx
k = 0
sinx = 0
while x >= pi:
x -= pi
if pi > x > pi / 2:
x = pi - x
while k < 15:
sinx += (-1)**k * x**(2*k + 1) / f(2*k + 1)
k += 1
return sinx
def cos(x):
cosx = sin(pi / 2 - x)
return cosx
I improved the code now. Now it gives you accurate results of up to 14 decimal places. Also instead of writing full Taylor expression formula, I used a while loop to do that. While loop here acts as a summation function of maths. I also shorten the code inside cos(x). Instead of writing Taylor's expression here, I used a conversion formula of sinx to cosx. Which reduces the calculation process. I made a little change in the code. Now you can calculate sinx of huge number too with the same accuracy.
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
I have two quantities a & b that are defined by recursion and through reference to another list of values x = [ x_1, x_2, ... x_N ], which will be an input to the program. The program will iterate over all the values in x and update a & b according to:
for n in range(1,N)
a[n] = a[n-1] * exp(+x[n]) + b[n-1] * exp(-x[n])
b[n] = b[n-1] * exp(+x[n]) + a[n-1] * exp(-x[n])
and starting values
a[0] = exp(+x[0])
b[0] = exp(-x[0])
The values in x are not big numbers (always <10) but N will be in the hundreds, and because of all the exponentials the final values of a & b will be very large. I'm worried that because of the form of the recursion where we are constantly multiplying exponentially large numbers with exponentially small ones and adding them this scheme will become quite numerically unstable.
Ideally I would calculate log(a) and log(b) instead to stop the values becoming too large. But because of the recursion scheme that's not possible, unless I compute something much messier like
log_a[n] = x[n] + log_a[n-1] + log( 1 + exp(-2*x[n] + log_b[n-1]-log_a[n-1] ) )
Is numerical stability something I am right to be concerned about here? And if so would something like the log based scheme help to stabilise it?
We can rewrite that first as:
for n in range(1,N)
a[n] = exp(log(a[n-1]) + x[n]) + exp(log(b[n-1]) - x[n])
b[n] = exp(log(b[n-1]) + x[n]) + exp(log(a[n-1]) - x[n]))
Then change our iteration variables:
for n in range(1,N)
log_a[n] = log(exp(log_a[n-1] + x[n]) + exp(log_b[n-1] - x[n]))
log_b[n] = log(exp(log_b[n-1] + x[n]) + exp(log_a[n-1] - x[n]))
Which can be computed more stably using np.logaddexp:
for n in range(1,N)
log_a[n] = np.logaddexp(log_a[n-1] + x[n], log_b[n-1] - x[n])
log_b[n] = np.logaddexp(log_b[n-1] + x[n], log_a[n-1] - x[n])
The implementation of logaddexp can be seen here
As far as I'm aware, all(?) recursive problems can be solved through dynamic programming. For example, the Fibonacci sequence could be expressed like so:
def fibo(n):
if n == 0:
return 0
elif n == 1:
return 1
return fibo(n-1) + fibo(n-2)
Or, iteratively:
n = 10
fibo_nums = [0, 1]
while len(fibo_nums) <= n:
fibo_nums.append(fibo_nums[-2] + fibo_nums[-1])
Presumably if you have a recursive problem you could perform a similar unpacking.
I’m having a bit of trouble controlling the results from a data generating algorithm I am working on. Basically it takes values from a list and then lists all the different combinations to get to a specific sum. So far the code works fine(haven’t tested scaling it with many variables yet), but I need to allow for negative numbers to be include in the list.
The way I think I can solve this problem is to put a collar on the possible results as to prevent infinity results(if apples is 2 and oranges are -1 then for any sum, there will be an infinite solutions but if I say there is a limit of either then it cannot go on forever.)
So Here's super basic code that detects weights:
import math
data = [-2, 10,5,50,20,25,40]
target_sum = 100
max_percent = .8 #no value can exceed 80% of total(this is to prevent infinite solutions
for node in data:
max_value = abs(math.floor((target_sum * max_percent)/node))
print node, "'s max value is ", max_value
Here's the code that generates the results(first function generates a table if its possible and the second function composes the actual results. Details/pseudo code of the algo is here: Can brute force algorithms scale? ):
from collections import defaultdict
data = [-2, 10,5,50,20,25,40]
target_sum = 100
# T[x, i] is True if 'x' can be solved
# by a linear combination of data[:i+1]
T = defaultdict(bool) # all values are False by default
T[0, 0] = True # base case
for i, x in enumerate(data): # i is index, x is data[i]
for s in range(target_sum + 1): #set the range of one higher than sum to include sum itself
for c in range(s / x + 1):
if T[s - c * x, i]:
T[s, i+1] = True
coeff = [0]*len(data)
def RecursivelyListAllThatWork(k, sum): # Using last k variables, make sum
# /* Base case: If we've assigned all the variables correctly, list this
# * solution.
# */
if k == 0:
# print what we have so far
print(' + '.join("%2s*%s" % t for t in zip(coeff, data)))
return
x_k = data[k-1]
# /* Recursive step: Try all coefficients, but only if they work. */
for c in range(sum // x_k + 1):
if T[sum - c * x_k, k - 1]:
# mark the coefficient of x_k to be c
coeff[k-1] = c
RecursivelyListAllThatWork(k - 1, sum - c * x_k)
# unmark the coefficient of x_k
coeff[k-1] = 0
RecursivelyListAllThatWork(len(data), target_sum)
My problem is, I don't know where/how to integrate my limiting code to the main code inorder to restrict results and allow for negative numbers. When I add a negative number to the list, it displays it but does not include it in the output. I think this is due to it not being added to the table(first function) and I'm not sure how to have it added(and still keep the programs structure so I can scale it with more variables).
Thanks in advance and if anything is unclear please let me know.
edit: a bit unrelated(and if detracts from the question just ignore, but since your looking at the code already, is there a way I can utilize both cpus on my machine with this code? Right now when I run it, it only uses one cpu. I know the technical method of parallel computing in python but not sure how to logically parallelize this algo)
You can restrict results by changing both loops over c from
for c in range(s / x + 1):
to
max_value = int(abs((target_sum * max_percent)/x))
for c in range(max_value + 1):
This will ensure that any coefficient in the final answer will be an integer in the range 0 to max_value inclusive.
A simple way of adding negative values is to change the loop over s from
for s in range(target_sum + 1):
to
R=200 # Maximum size of any partial sum
for s in range(-R,R+1):
Note that if you do it this way then your solution will have an additional constraint.
The new constraint is that the absolute value of every partial weighted sum must be <=R.
(You can make R large to avoid this constraint reducing the number of solutions, but this will slow down execution.)
The complete code looks like:
from collections import defaultdict
data = [-2,10,5,50,20,25,40]
target_sum = 100
# T[x, i] is True if 'x' can be solved
# by a linear combination of data[:i+1]
T = defaultdict(bool) # all values are False by default
T[0, 0] = True # base case
R=200 # Maximum size of any partial sum
max_percent=0.8 # Maximum weight of any term
for i, x in enumerate(data): # i is index, x is data[i]
for s in range(-R,R+1): #set the range of one higher than sum to include sum itself
max_value = int(abs((target_sum * max_percent)/x))
for c in range(max_value + 1):
if T[s - c * x, i]:
T[s, i+1] = True
coeff = [0]*len(data)
def RecursivelyListAllThatWork(k, sum): # Using last k variables, make sum
# /* Base case: If we've assigned all the variables correctly, list this
# * solution.
# */
if k == 0:
# print what we have so far
print(' + '.join("%2s*%s" % t for t in zip(coeff, data)))
return
x_k = data[k-1]
# /* Recursive step: Try all coefficients, but only if they work. */
max_value = int(abs((target_sum * max_percent)/x_k))
for c in range(max_value + 1):
if T[sum - c * x_k, k - 1]:
# mark the coefficient of x_k to be c
coeff[k-1] = c
RecursivelyListAllThatWork(k - 1, sum - c * x_k)
# unmark the coefficient of x_k
coeff[k-1] = 0
RecursivelyListAllThatWork(len(data), target_sum)