We Keep Coding

How to solve equations in python

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.

How to solve an equation with one unknown variable [duplicate]

Closed. This question needs to be more focused. It is not currently accepting answers.
Want to improve this question? Update the question so it focuses on one problem only by editing this post.
Closed 7 years ago.
Improve this question
Let's say I have an equation:
2x + 6 = 12
With algebra we can see that x = 3. How can I make a program in Python that can solve for x? I'm new to programming, and I looked at eval() and exec() but I can't figure out how to make them do what I want. I do not want to use external libraries (e.g. SAGE), I want to do this in just plain Python.

How about SymPy? Their solver looks like what you need. Have a look at their source code if you want to build the library yourself…

There are two ways to approach this problem: numerically and symbolically.
To solve it numerically, you have to first encode it as a "runnable" function - stick a value in, get a value out. For example,
def my_function(x):
return 2*x + 6
It is quite possible to parse a string to automatically create such a function; say you parse 2x + 6 into a list, [6, 2] (where the list index corresponds to the power of x - so 6*x^0 + 2*x^1). Then:
def makePoly(arr):
def fn(x):
return sum(c*x**p for p,c in enumerate(arr))
return fn
my_func = makePoly([6, 2])
my_func(3) # returns 12
You then need another function which repeatedly plugs an x-value into your function, looks at the difference between the result and what it wants to find, and tweaks its x-value to (hopefully) minimize the difference.
def dx(fn, x, delta=0.001):
return (fn(x+delta) - fn(x))/delta
def solve(fn, value, x=0.5, maxtries=1000, maxerr=0.00001):
for tries in xrange(maxtries):
err = fn(x) - value
if abs(err) < maxerr:
return x
slope = dx(fn, x)
x -= err/slope
raise ValueError('no solution found')
There are lots of potential problems here - finding a good starting x-value, assuming that the function actually has a solution (ie there are no real-valued answers to x^2 + 2 = 0), hitting the limits of computational accuracy, etc. But in this case, the error minimization function is suitable and we get a good result:
solve(my_func, 16) # returns (x =) 5.000000000000496
Note that this solution is not absolutely, exactly correct. If you need it to be perfect, or if you want to try solving families of equations analytically, you have to turn to a more complicated beast: a symbolic solver.
A symbolic solver, like Mathematica or Maple, is an expert system with a lot of built-in rules ("knowledge") about algebra, calculus, etc; it "knows" that the derivative of sin is cos, that the derivative of kx^p is kpx^(p-1), and so on. When you give it an equation, it tries to find a path, a set of rule-applications, from where it is (the equation) to where you want to be (the simplest possible form of the equation, which is hopefully the solution).
Your example equation is quite simple; a symbolic solution might look like:
=> LHS([6, 2]) RHS([16])
# rule: pull all coefficients into LHS
LHS, RHS = [lh-rh for lh,rh in izip_longest(LHS, RHS, 0)], [0]
=> LHS([-10,2]) RHS([0])
# rule: solve first-degree poly
if RHS==[0] and len(LHS)==2:
LHS, RHS = [0,1], [-LHS[0]/LHS[1]]
=> LHS([0,1]) RHS([5])
and there is your solution: x = 5.
I hope this gives the flavor of the idea; the details of implementation (finding a good, complete set of rules and deciding when each rule should be applied) can easily consume many man-years of effort.

Python may be good, but it isn't God...
There are a few different ways to solve equations. SymPy has already been mentioned, if you're looking for analytic solutions.
If you're happy to just have a numerical solution, Numpy has a few routines that can help. If you're just interested in solutions to polynomials, numpy.roots will work. Specifically for the case you mentioned:
>>> import numpy
>>> numpy.roots([2,-6])
array([3.0])
For more complicated expressions, have a look at scipy.fsolve.
Either way, you can't escape using a library.

If you only want to solve the extremely limited set of equations mx + c = y for positive integer m, c, y, then this will do:
import re
def solve_linear_equation ( equ ):
"""
Given an input string of the format "3x+2=6", solves for x.
The format must be as shown - no whitespace, no decimal numbers,
no negative numbers.
"""
match = re.match(r"(\d+)x\+(\d+)=(\d+)", equ)
m, c, y = match.groups()
m, c, y = float(m), float(c), float(y) # Convert from strings to numbers
x = (y-c)/m
print ("x = %f" % x)
Some tests:
>>> solve_linear_equation("2x+4=12")
x = 4.000000
>>> solve_linear_equation("123x+456=789")
x = 2.707317
>>>
If you want to recognise and solve arbitrary equations, like sin(x) + e^(i*pi*x) = 1, then you will need to implement some kind of symbolic maths engine, similar to maxima, Mathematica, MATLAB's solve() or Symbolic Toolbox, etc. As a novice, this is beyond your ken.

Use a different tool. Something like Wolfram Alpha, Maple, R, Octave, Matlab or any other algebra software package.
As a beginner you should probably not attempt to solve such a non-trivial problem.

sympy solveset returns FiniteSet in one case but a Complement in another case

So I am starting with an equality of an equation and a fraction that I use to solve for both x and y:
mrs = y/x
ratio = 2/5
x = sympy.solveset(sympy.Eq(mrs, ratio), x)
y = sympy.solveset(sympy.Eq(mrs, ratio), y)
In the end, solving for y returns:
{2*x/5}
Which is a FiniteSet
But solving for x returns:
{5*y/2} \ {0}
Which is a Complement
I don't get why solving for one variable gives me a FiniteSet when solving for the other doesn't do the same? Also, would there be a way to solve for the other variable so as to get a FiniteSet instead of a Complement?

What do you expect as a result? Could you solve this problem by hand and write the expected solution? And why would you want a FiniteSet as solution?
I myself can not come up with a better notation than sympy, since x=0 needs to be excluded.
When you continue working with the solutions sympy can easily work with both, FiniteSet and Complement. Mathematically those are not completely different structures. The difference is that sympy somehow needs to represent these solutions internally and can not use the same construction for everything, but rather uses small building blocks to create the solution. The result you get with type(x) is symply the last building block used.
EDIT: Some math here: x=0 does not solve the equation y/x=2/5 for any y. So this must be excluded from the solutionset.
If you solve for y, then x=0 is already excluded since y/0 is not well defined.
If you solve for y, then y=0 is a priori possible, since 0/x=0 for x!=0. Thus sympy needs to exclude x=0 manually, which it does by removing 0 from the set of solutions.
Now, since we know that x=0 can never be a solution of the equation we can exclude it before even trying to solve the equation. Therefore we do
x = sympy.symbols('x', real=True, nonzero=True)
right at the beginning of the example (before the definition of mrs). The rest can remain unchanged.

Multivariate Root Finding in Python

Using excel solver, it is easy to find a solution (optimum value for x and y )for this equation:
(x*14.80461) + (y * -4.9233) + (10*0.4803) ≈ 0
However, I can't figure out how to do this in Python. The existing scipy optimize library function like fsolve() or leastsq() seems to work with only one variable.... (I might just not know how to use them)...
Any suggestions?
Thanks!

>>> def f(x):
... return x[0]*14.80461 + x[1]*(-4.9233) + x[2]*(10*0.4803)
>>> def vf(x):
... return [f(x), 0, 0]
>> xx = fsolve(vf, x0=[0,0,1])
>>>
>>> f(xx)
8.8817841970012523e-16
Since the solution is not unique, different initial values for an unknown lead to different (valid) solutions.
EDIT: Why this works. Well, it's a dirty hack. It's just that fsolve and its relatives deal with systems of equations. What I did here, I defined a system of three equations (f(x) returns a three-element list) for three variables (x has three elements). Now fsolve uses a Newton-type algorithm to converge to a solution.
Clearly, the system is underdefined: you can specify arbitrary values of two variables, say, x[1] and x[2] and find x[0] to satisfy the only non-trivial equation you have. You can see this explicitly by specifying a couple of initial guesses for x0 and see different outputs, all of which satisfy f(x)=0 up to a certain tolerance.

mrdivide function in MATLAB: what is it doing, and how can I do it in Python?

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