System of equations
a)
[latex]\begin{cases} x_{1}^{''}-3x_1-4x_2=0\\x_{2}^{''}+x_1+x_2=0\end{cases}[latex]
write as one first-order vector equation.
When I simplified it, I got it $x_{1}^{''}+3x_{2}^{''}-x_2=0.$
Next, I have a second-order equation on how to bring it down to the first.
Related
I am trying to solve two equations below for my project. I was unable to find any straightforward guide to solving the differential equations.
I am trying to plot a graph of h over time for the equations with a given initial h, miu, r, theta, g, L, and derivatives of h and theta wrt t. Is this possible? And if so, how?
The two equations mentioned
I tried to type the equations into Octave with the given conditions, but there seems to be an error that I am unable to identify.
Whatever is the numerical software you will use, Octave or another one (that does not formal calculation), the first step is to transform your system or N coupled Ordinary Differential Equations (ODEs) of order p into a system of p*N coupled ODEs of order 1.
This is always done by setting intermediate derivatives as new variables.
For your system, then
will become
Then, with Octave, and as explained in doc lsode you define a function say Xdot = dsys(X), that codes this system. X is the vector [h, theta, H, J], and Xdot is the returned vector of their respective derivatives, as defined by the right hand expressions of the system of first order ODEs.
So, the 2 first elements of Xdot will be trivial, just Xdot=[X(3) X(4) ...].
Of course, dsys() must also use the parameters M, g, m, ยต, L, and r. As far as i understand, they can't be passed as additional arguments to dsys(). So you must defined them before calling lsode.
For initial states, you must define the vector X0=[h0, theta0, H0, J0] of known initial values.
The vector of increasing times >= 0 to which you want to compute and get the values of X must then be defined. For instance, t = 0:100. 0 must be the first element of t.
Finally, call Xt = lsode(#dsys, X0, t). After that you should get
Xt(:,1) are the values of h(t)
Xt(:,2) are the values of theta(t)
Xt(:,3) are the values of H(t)=(dh/dt)(t)
Xt(:,4) are the values of J(t)=(dtheta/dt)(t)
I'm trying to do some exercises of Compressed Sensing on Julia, but i realize that the discrete cosine transformation (using FFTW.jl) of an identity matrix doesn't looks as the result of other programming languages (aka. Mathematica and Matlab).
For example in Julia
using Plots, FFTW, LinearAlgebra
n = 100
Psi = dct(Matrix(1.0I,n,n))
heatmap(Psi)
results in this matrix (which is essentially an identity matrix with some noise)
But in Matlab
imagesc(dct(eye(100,100),'Type',2))
this is the result (as expected)
Finally in Mathematica
MatrixPlot[N[FourierDCTMatrix[100, 2]], PlotLegends -> Automatic]
returns this
Why Julia behaves so differently?
And is this normal?
Matlab (and I guess Mathematica), does dct of each column in your matrix. FFTW performs a 2-dimensional dct when the input is two-dimensional. The same happens for fft.
If you want column-wise transformation, you can specify the dimension:
Psi1 = dct(Matrix(1.0I,n,n), 1); # along first dimension
heatmap(Psi1)
Notice that the direction of the y-axis is opposite for Plots.jl relative to Matlab.
(BTW, you can also just write I(n) or 1.0I(n) instead of Matrix(1.0I,n,n))
This is something that sets Julia apart from some other languages. It tends to treat matrices as matrices, and not as just a collection of vectors or a bunch of scalars. For example exp(M) and log(M) for matrices not operate elementwise, but will calculate the matrix exponential and matrix logarithm according to their linear algebra definitions.
I've had a pet personal project trying to dig through my Dad's old thesis from 1972 and to reproduce a computational solution that he derived. His project was looking at the kinetics of a transition state for alumina ceramics. After collecting the data, he derived the following model for the kinetic curve of the transition (see attached image from his thesis).
In case the picture doesn't come through, the data form a s shaped curve. To the left of the inflection point t* the data fit the equation
y = A * exp(K*t)
To the right of the inflection point, the data fit the equation
y = 1 - B * exp(-J * t^n)
He wrote up a fortran program using Fortran 68 that does dynamic modeling and least squares fitting for this. I am trying to "update" his code to see if I can do it more efficiently in R. So two questions:
What is the best way to just plot his model? i.e. how to plot two equations in this manner. I feel like I could do it brute force with base R, but I'm not sure that it will transition between the two equations smoothly.
In his model, the coefficients A, K, B, J and n as well as the inflection point t* are unknown and are optimized by least squares. He does his modeling in fortran by brute force. Is there a glm or similar solution in R for solving this elegantly?
Here is a sample of the data that he generated:
y <- c(20,30,40,50,55,60,65,70,80,90,100,110,120,150)
t <- c(0.05,0.11,0.185,0.31,0.375,0.445,0.52,0.63,0.8,0.92,0.97,0.98,0.99,0.999)
I am trying to calculate P^100 where P is my transition matrix. I want to do this by diagonalizing P so that way we have P = Q*D*Q^-1.
Of course, if I can get P to be of this form, then I can easily calculate P^100 = Q*D^100*Q^-1 (where * denotes matrix multiplication).
I discovered that if you just do P^5 that all you'll get in return is a matrix where each of your entries of P were raised to the 5th power, rather than the fifth power of the matrix (P*P*P*P*P).
I found a question on here that asks how to check if a matrix is diagonalizable but not how to explicitly construct the diagonalization of a matrix. In MATLAB it's super easy but well, I'm using R and not MATLAB.
The eigen() function will compute eigenvalues and eigenvectors for you (the matrix of eigenvectors is Q in your expression, diag() of the eigenvalues is D).
You could also use the %^% operator in the expm package, or functions from other packages described in the answers to this question.
The advantages of using someone else's code are that it's already been tested and debugged, and may use faster or more robust algorithms (e.g., it's often more efficient to compute the matrix power by composing powers of two of the matrix rather than doing the eigenvector computations). The advantage of writing your own method is that you'll understand it better.
So I want to ask whether there's any way to define and solve a system of differential equations in R using matrix notation.
I know usually you do something like
lotka-volterra <- function(t,a,b,c,d,x,y){
dx <- ax + bxy
dy <- dxy - cy
return(list(c(dx,dy)))
}
But I want to do
lotka-volterra <- function(t,M,v,x){
dx <- x * M%*% x + v * x
return(list(dx))
}
where x is a vector of length 2, M is a 2*2 matrix and v is a vector of length 2. I.e. I want to define the system of differential equations using matrix/vector notation.
This is important because my system is significantly more complex, and I don't want to define 11 different differential equations with 100+ parameters rather than 1 differential equation with 1 matrix of interaction parameters and 1 vector of growth parameters.
I can define the function as above, but when it comes to using ode function from deSolve, there is an expectation of parms which should be passed as a named vector of parameters, which of course does not accept non-scalar values.
Is this at all possible in R with deSolve, or another package? If not I'll look into perhaps using MATLAB or Python, though I don't know how it's done in either of those languages either at present.
Many thanks,
H
With my low reputation (points), I apologize for posting this as an answer which supposedly should be just a comment. Going back, have you tried this link? In addition, in an attempt to find an alternative solution to your problem, have you tried MANOPT, a toolbox of MATLAB? It's actually open source just like R. I encountered MANOPT on a paper whose problem boils down to solving a system of ODEs involving purely matrices.