I try to write a script that simulates a resistor. It takes 2 arguments for example P and R and it should calculate all missing values of this resistor.
The problem is that I don't want to write every single possible equation for every value. This means I want to write something like (U=RxI, R=U/R, I=U/R , P=UxI) and the script should then complete all equation with the given values for every equation.
For example, something like this:
in R=10
in I=5
out U=R*I
out P=I**2 * R
You can use https://pypi.org/project/Equation/ Packages.
Example
>>> from Equation import Expression
>>> fn = Expression("sin(x+y^2)",["y","x"])
>>> fn
sin((x + (y ^ (2+0j))))
>>> print fn
\sin\left(\left(x + y^{(2+0j)}\right)\right)
>>> fn(3,4)
(0.42016703682664092+0j)
Sympy
Second: https://github.com/sympy/sympy/wiki
Arbitrary precision integers, rationals and floats, as well as symbolic expressions
Simplification (e.g. ( abb + 2bab ) → (3ab^2)), expansion (e.g. ((a+b)^2) → (a^2 + 2ab + b^2)), and other methods of rewriting expressions
Functions (exp, log, sin, ...)
Complex numbers (like exp(Ix).expand(complex=True) → cos(x)+Isin(x))
Taylor (Laurent) series and limits
Differentiation and integration
In vanilla python, there is no solution as general as the one you are looking for.
The typical solution would be to write an algorithm for every option (only given U, only given R) and then logically select which option to execute.
You may also want to consider using a module like SymPy, which has a solver module that may be more up your alley.
I'm currently trying to calculate a negative group delay of analog filters by using symbolic calculations in Python. The problem that I'm currently trying to resolve is to get rid of some very small imaginary coefficients.
For example, consider fraction with such numerator (imaginary parts are bolded):
(-1.705768*w^18 + 14.702976409432*w^16 + 1.06581410364015e-14*I*w^15 - 28.7694094371724*w^14 - 9.94759830064144e-14*I*w^13 + 59.0191623753299*w^12 + 5.6843418860808e-14*I*w^11 + 24.7015297857594*w^10 - 1.13686837721616e-13*I*w^9 - 549.093511217598*w^8 - 5.6843418860808e-14*I*w^7 + 1345.40434657845*w^6 + 2.27373675443232e-13*I*w^5 - 1594.14046181284*w^4 - 1.13686837721616e-13*I*w^3 + 980.58940367608*w^2 - 254.8428594382)
Is there any way to automatically round those small coefficients, so they would be equal 0 (in general any negligligible values)? Or at least, can I somehow filter imaginary values out? I've tried to use re(given_fraction), but it couldn't return anything. Also standard rounding function can't cope with symbolic expressions.
The rounding part was already addressed in Printing the output rounded to 3 decimals in SymPy so I won't repeat my answer there, focusing instead of dropping imaginary parts of coefficients.
Method 1
You can simply do re(expr) where expr is your expression. But for this to work, w must be known to be a real variable; otherwise there is no way for SymPy to tell what the real part of (3+4*I)*w is. (SymPy symbols are assumed to be complex unless stated otherwise.) This will do the job:
w = symbols('w', real=True)
expr = # your formula
expr = re(expr)
Method 2
If for some reason you can't do the above... another, somewhat intrusive, way to drop the imaginary part of everything is to replace I with 0:
expr = expr.xreplace({I: 0})
This assumes the expression is already in the expanded form (as shown), so there is no (3+4*I)**2, for example; otherwise the result would be wrong.
Method 3
A more robust approach than 2, but specialized to polynomials:
expr = Poly([re(c) for c in Poly(expr, w).all_coeffs()], w).as_expr()
Here the expression is first turned into a polynomial in w (which is possible in your example, since it has a polynomial form). Then the real part of each coefficient is taken, and a polynomial is rebuilt from them. The final part as_expr() returns it back to expression form, if desired.
Either way, the output for your expression:
-1.705768*w**18 + 14.702976409432*w**16 - 28.7694094371724*w**14 + 59.0191623753299*w**12 + 24.7015297857594*w**10 - 549.093511217598*w**8 + 1345.40434657845*w**6 - 1594.14046181284*w**4 + 980.58940367608*w**2 - 254.8428594382
I want to make a series expansion for a function F(e,Eo) up to a certain power of e and integrate over the Eo variable numerically.
What I thought was using SymPy to make the power series in e, and then use MPMath for the numerical integration over Eo.
Below is an example code. I receive the message that it can not create mpf from the expression. I guess the problem has to do with the fact that with the series from SymPy has an O(e**5) term at the end, and later that I want the numerical integration to show a function of e instead of a number.
import sympy as sp
import numpy as np
from mpmath import *
e = sp.symbols('e')
Eo = sp.symbols('Eo')
expr = sp.sin(e-2*Eo).series(e, 0, 5)
F = lambda Eo : expr
I = quad(F, [0, 2*np.pi])
print(I)
It’s evident that I need a different approach, but I would still need the numerical integration for my actual code because it has much more complicated expressions that could not be integrated analytically.
Edit: I should have chosen a complex function of real variables for the example code, I am trying this (the expansion and integration) for functions such as:
expr = (cos(Eo) - e - I*sqrt(1 - e ** 2)*sin(Eo)) ** 2 * (cos(2*(Eo - e*sin(Eo))) + I*sin(2*(Eo - e*sin(Eo))))/(1 - e*cos(Eo)) ** 4
Here is an approach similar to Wrzlprmft's answer but with a different way of handling coefficients, via SymPy's polynomial module:
from sympy import sin, pi, symbols, Integral, Poly
def integrate_coeff(coeff):
partial_integral = coeff.integrate((Eo, 0, 2*pi))
return partial_integral.n() if partial_integral.has(Integral) else partial_integral
e,Eo = symbols("e Eo")
expr = sin(e-sin(2*Eo))
degree = 5
coeffs = Poly(expr.series(e, 0, degree).removeO(), e).all_coeffs()
new_coeffs = map(integrate_coeff, coeffs)
print((Poly(new_coeffs, e).as_expr() + e**degree).series(e, 0, degree))
The main code is three lines: (1) extract coefficients of e up to given degree; (2) integrate each, numerically if we must; (3) print the result, presenting it as a series rather than a polynomial (hence the trick with adding e**degree, to make SymPy aware that the series continues). Output:
-6.81273574401304e-108 + 4.80787886126883*e + 3.40636787200652e-108*e**2 - 0.801313143544804*e**3 - 2.12897992000408e-109*e**4 + O(e**5)
I want the numerical integration to show a function of e instead of a number.
This is fundamentally impossible.
Either your integration is analytical or numerical, and if it is numerical it will only handle and yield numbers for you (the words numerical and number are similar for a reason).
If you want to split the integration into numerical and analytical components, you have to do so yourself – or hope that SymPy automatically splits the integration as needed, which it unfortunately is not yet capable of.
This is how I would do it (details are commented in the code):
from sympy import sin, pi, symbols, Integral
from itertools import islice
e,Eo = symbols("e Eo")
expr = sin(e-sin(2*Eo))
# Create a generator yielding the first five summands of the series.
# This avoids the O(e**5) term.
series = islice(expr.series(e,0,None),5)
integral = 0
for power,summand in enumerate(series):
# Remove the e from the expression
Eo_part = summand/e**power
# … and ensure that it worked:
assert not Eo_part.has(e)
# Integrate the Eo part:
partial_integral = Eo_part.integrate((Eo,0,2*pi))
# If the integral cannot be evaluated analytically, …
if partial_integral.has(Integral):
# … replace it by the numerical estimate:
partial_integral = partial_integral.n()
# Re-attach the e component and add it to the sum:
integral += partial_integral*e**power
Note that I did not use NumPy or MPMath at all (though SymPy uses the latter under the hood for numerical estimates). Unless you really really know what you’re doing, mixing those two with SymPy is a bad idea as they are not even aware of SymPy expressions.
Hi I am writing Python code which returns the associated Legendre function.
Using numpy poly1d function on this part,
firstTerm = (np.poly1d([-1,0,1]))**(m/2.0) # HELP!
It yields an error since it can only be raised to integer.
Is there any other alternative where I can raise the desired function to power 1/2 and etc.?
The reason you can't raise your poly1d to half-integer power is that that would not be a polynomial, since it would contain square roots.
While in principle you could orthogonalize the functions yourself, or construct the functions from something like sympy.special.legendre, but your safest bet is symbolic math. And hey, we already have sympy.functions.special.polynomials.assoc_legendre! Since symbolic math is slow, you should probably use sympy.lambdify to turn each function into a numerical one:
import sympy as sym
x = sym.symbols('x')
n = 3
m = 1
legfun_sym = sym.functions.special.polynomials.assoc_legendre(n,m,x)
legfun_num = sym.lambdify(x,legfun_sym)
print(legfun_sym)
print(legfun_num)
x0 = 0.25
print(legfun_sym.evalf(subs={x:x0}) - legfun_num(x0))
This prints
-sqrt(-x**2 + 1)*(15*x**2/2 - 3/2)
<function <lambda> at 0x7f0a091976e0>
-1.11022302462516e-16
which seems to make sense (the first is the symbolic function at x, the second shows that lambdify indeed creates a lambda from the function, and the last one is the numerical difference of the two functions at the pseudorandom point x0 = 0.25, and is clearly zero within machine precision).
I have this line of MATLAB code:
a/b
I am using these inputs:
a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9]
b = ones(25, 18)
This is the result (a 1x25 matrix):
[5,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0,0]
What is MATLAB doing? I am trying to duplicate this behavior in Python, and the mrdivide documentation in MATLAB was unhelpful. Where does the 5 come from, and why are the rest of the values 0?
I have tried this with other inputs and receive similar results, usually just a different first element and zeros filling the remainder of the matrix. In Python when I use linalg.lstsq(b.T,a.T), all of the values in the first matrix returned (i.e. not the singular one) are 0.2. I have already tried right division in Python and it gives something completely off with the wrong dimensions.
I understand what a least square approximation is, I just need to know what mrdivide is doing.
Related:
Array division- translating from MATLAB to Python
MRDIVIDE or the / operator actually solves the xb = a linear system, as opposed to MLDIVIDE or the \ operator which will solve the system bx = a.
To solve a system xb = a with a non-symmetric, non-invertible matrix b, you can either rely on mridivide(), which is done via factorization of b with Gauss elimination, or pinv(), which is done via Singular Value Decomposition, and zero-ing of the singular values below a (default) tolerance level.
Here is the difference (for the case of mldivide): What is the difference between PINV and MLDIVIDE when I solve A*x=b?
When the system is overdetermined, both algorithms provide the
same answer. When the system is underdetermined, PINV will return the
solution x, that has the minimum norm (min NORM(x)). MLDIVIDE will
pick the solution with least number of non-zero elements.
In your example:
% solve xb = a
a = [1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9];
b = ones(25, 18);
the system is underdetermined, and the two different solutions will be:
x1 = a/b; % MRDIVIDE: sparsest solution (min L0 norm)
x2 = a*pinv(b); % PINV: minimum norm solution (min L2)
>> x1 = a/b
Warning: Rank deficient, rank = 1, tol = 2.3551e-014.
ans =
5.0000 0 0 ... 0
>> x2 = a*pinv(b)
ans =
0.2 0.2 0.2 ... 0.2
In both cases the approximation error of xb-a is non-negligible (non-exact solution) and the same, i.e. norm(x1*b-a) and norm(x2*b-a) will return the same result.
What is MATLAB doing?
A great break-down of the algorithms (and checks on properties) invoked by the '\' operator, depending upon the structure of matrix b is given in this post in scicomp.stackexchange.com. I am assuming similar options apply for the / operator.
For your example, MATLAB is most probably doing a Gaussian elimination, giving the sparsest solution amongst a infinitude (that's where the 5 comes from).
What is Python doing?
Python, in linalg.lstsq uses pseudo-inverse/SVD, as demonstrated above (that's why you get a vector of 0.2's). In effect, the following will both give you the same result as MATLAB's pinv():
from numpy import *
a = array([1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9])
b = ones((25, 18))
# xb = a: solve b.T x.T = a.T instead
x2 = linalg.lstsq(b.T, a.T)[0]
x2 = dot(a, linalg.pinv(b))
TL;DR: A/B = np.linalg.solve(B.conj().T, A.conj().T).conj().T
I did not find the earlier answers to create a satisfactory substitute, so I dug into Matlab's reference documents for mrdivide further and found the solution. I cannot explain the actual mathematics here or take credit for coming up with the answer. I'm just following Matlab's explanation. Additionally, I wanted to post the actual detail from Matlab to give credit. If it's a copyright issue, someone tell me and I'll remove the actual text.
%/ Slash or right matrix divide.
% A/B is the matrix division of B into A, which is roughly the
% same as A*INV(B) , except it is computed in a different way.
% More precisely, A/B = (B'\A')'. See MLDIVIDE for details.
%
% C = MRDIVIDE(A,B) is called for the syntax 'A / B' when A or B is an
% object.
%
% See also MLDIVIDE, RDIVIDE, LDIVIDE.
% Copyright 1984-2005 The MathWorks, Inc.
Note that the ' symbol indicates the complex conjugate transpose. In python using numpy, that requires .conj().T chained together.
Per this handy "cheat sheet" of numpy for matlab users, linalg.lstsq(b,a) -- linalg is numpy.linalg.linalg, a light-weight version of the full scipy.linalg.
a/b finds the least square solution to the system of linear equations bx = a
if b is invertible, this is a*inv(b), but if it isn't, the it is the x which minimises norm(bx-a)
You can read more about least squares on wikipedia.
according to matlab documentation, mrdivide will return at most k non-zero values, where k is the computed rank of b. my guess is that matlab in your case solves the least squares problem given by replacing b by b(:1) (which has the same rank). In this case the moore-penrose inverse b2 = b(1,:); inv(b2*b2')*b2*a' is defined and gives the same answer