Related
I don't even know if something like this is possible, but:
Let us say we have three numbers:
A = 6
B = 7.5
C = 24
I would like to find a few evenly spaced common multiples of these numbers between 0 and 2.
So the requirement is: one_of_these_numbers / common_multiple = an_integer (or almost an integer with a particular tolerance)
For example, a good result would be [0.1 , 0.5 , 1 , 1.5]
I have no idea if this is possible, because one can not iterate through a range of floats, but is there a smart way to do it?
I am using python, but a solution could be represented in any language of your preference.
Thank you for your help!
While I was writing my question, I actually came up with an idea for the solution.
To find common divisors using code, we have to work with integers.
My solution is to multiply all numbers by a factor = 1, 10, 100, ...
so that we can act as if they are integers, find their integer common divisors, and then redivide them by the factor to get a result.
Better explained in code:
a = 6
b = 7.5
c = 24
# Find a few possible divisors between 0 and 2 so that all numbers are divisible
by div.
# We define a function that finds all divisors in a range of numbers, supposing
all numbers are integers.
def find_common_divisors(numbers, range_start, range_end):
results = []
for i in range(range_start + 1, range_end + 1):
if all([e % i == 0 for e in numbers]):
results.append(i)
return results
def main():
nums = [a, b, c]
range_start = 0
range_end = 2
factor = 1
results = [1]
while factor < 11:
nums_i = [e * factor for e in nums]
range_end_i = range_end * factor
results += [e / factor for e in find_common_divisors(nums_i, range_start, range_end_i)]
factor *= 10
print(sorted(set(results)))
if __name__ == '__main__':
main()
For these particular numbers, I get the output:
[0.1, 0.3, 0.5, 1, 1.5]
If we need more results, we can adjust while factor < 11: to a higher number than 11 like 101.
I am curious to see if I made any mistake in my code.
Happy to hear some feedback.
Thank you!
Problem: There are R red marbles, G green marbles and B blue marbles (R≤G≤B) Count the number of ways to arrange them in a straight line so that the two marbles next to each other are of different colors.
For example, R=G=B=2, the answer is 30.
I have tried using recursion and of course TLE:
Define r(R,B,G) to be the number of ways of arranging them where the first marble is red. Define b(R,B,G),g(R,B,G) respectively.
Then r(R, B, G) = b(R-1,B,G) + g(R-1,B,G)
And the answer is r(R,B,G) + b(R,B,G) + g(R,B,G)
But we can see that r(R, B, G) = b(B, R, G) ...
So, we just need a function f(x,y,z)=f(y,x−1,z)+f(z,x−1,y)
And the answer is f(x,y,z) + f(y,z,x) + f(z,x,y).
The time limit is 2 seconds.
I don't think dynamic is not TLE because R, G, B <= 2e5
Some things to limit the recursion:
If R>G+B+1, then there is no way to avoid having 2 adjacent reds. (Similar argument for G>R+B+1 & B>R+G+1.)
If R=G+B+1, then you alternate reds with non-reds, and your problem is reduced to how many ways you can arrange G greens and B blacks w/o worrying about adjacency (and should thus have a closed-form solution). (Again, similar argument for G=R+B+1 and B=R+G+1.)
You can use symmetry to cut down the number of recursions.
For example, if (R, G, B) = (30, 20, 10) and the last marble was red, the number of permutations from this position is exactly the same as if the last marble was blue and (R, G, B) = (10, 20, 30).
Given that R ≤ G ≤ B is set as a starting condition, I would suggest keeping this relationship true by swapping the three values when necessary.
Here's some Python code I came up with:
memo = {}
def marble_seq(r, g, b, last):
# last = colour of last marble placed (-1:nothing, 0:red, 1:green, 2:blue)
if r == g == b == 0:
# All the marbles have been placed, so we found a solution
return 1
# Enforce r <= g <= b
if r > g:
r, g = g, r
last = (0x201 >> last * 4) & 0x0f # [1, 0, 2][last]
if r > b:
r, b = b, r
last = (0x012 >> last * 4) & 0x0f # [2, 1, 0][last]
if g > b:
g, b = b, g
last = (0x120 >> last * 4) & 0x0f # [0, 2, 1][last]
# Abort if there are too many marbles of one colour
if b>r+g+1:
return 0
# Fetch value from memo if available
if (r,g,b,last) in memo:
return memo[(r,g,b,last)]
# Otherwise check remaining permutations by recursion
result = 0
if last != 0 and r > 0:
result += marble_seq(r-1,g,b,0)
if last != 1 and g > 0:
result += marble_seq(r,g-1,b,1)
if last != 2 and b > 0:
result += marble_seq(r,g,b-1,2)
memo[(r,g,b,last)] = result
return result
marble_seq(50,60,70,-1) # Call with `last` set to -1 initially
(Result: 205435997562313431685415150793926465693838980981664)
This probably still won't work fast enough for values up to 2×105, but even with values in the hundreds, the results are quite enormous. Are you sure you stated the problem correctly? Perhaps you're supposed to give the results modulo some prime number?
I'm writing a VBScript that sends out a weekly email with client activity. Here is some sample data:
a b c d e f g
2,780 2,667 2,785 1,031 646 2,340 2,410
Since this is email, I don't want a chart with a trend line. I just need a simple function that returns "up", "down" or "stable" (though I doubt it will ever be perfectly stable).
I'm terrible with math so I don't even know where to begin. I've looked at a few other questions for Python or Excel but there's just not enough similarity, or I don't have the knowledge, to apply it to VBS.
My goal would be something as simple as this:
a b c d e f g trend
2,780 2,667 2,785 1,031 646 2,340 2,410 ↘
If there is some delta or percentage or other measurement I could display that would be helpful. I would also probably want to ignore outliers. For instance, the 646 above. Some of our clients are not open on the weekend.
First of all, your data is listed as
a b c d e f g
2,780 2,667 2,785 1,031 646 2,340 2,410
To get a trend line you need to assign a numerical values to the variables a, b, c, ...
To assign numerical values to it, you need to have little bit more info how data are taken. Suppose you took data a on 1st January, you can assign it any value like 0 or 1. Then you took data b ten days later, then you can assign value 10 or 11 to it. Then you took data c thirty days later, then you can assign value 30 or 31 to it. The numerical values of a, b, c, ... must be proportional to the time interval of the data taken to get the more accurate value of the trend line.
If they are taken in regular interval (which is most likely your case), lets say every 7 days, then you can assign it in regular intervals a, b, c, ... ~ 1, 2, 3, ... Beginning point is entirely your choice choose something that makes it very easy. It does not matter on your final calculation.
Then you need to calculate the slope of the linear regression which you can find on this url from which you need to calculate the value of b with the following table.
On first column from row 2 to row 8, I have my values of a,b,c,... which I put 1,2,3, ...
On second column, I have my data.
On third column, I multiplied each cell in first column to corresponding cell in second column.
On fourth column, I squared the value of cell of first column.
On row 10, I added up the values of the above columns.
Finally use the values of row 10.
total_number_of_data*C[10] - A[10]*B[10]
b = -------------------------------------------
total_number_of_data*D[10]-square_of(A[10])
the sign of b determines what you are looking for. If it's positive, then it's up, if it's negative, then it's down, and if it's zero then stable.
This was a huge help! Here it is as a function in python
def trend_value(nums: list):
summed_nums = sum(nums)
multiplied_data = 0
summed_index = 0
squared_index = 0
for index, num in enumerate(nums):
index += 1
multiplied_data += index * num
summed_index += index
squared_index += index**2
numerator = (len(nums) * multiplied_data) - (summed_nums * summed_index)
denominator = (len(nums) * squared_index) - summed_index**2
if denominator != 0:
return numerator/denominator
else:
return 0
val = trend_value([2781, 2667, 2785, 1031, 646, 2340, 2410])
print(val) # -139.5
in python:
def get_trend(numbers):
rows = []
total_numbers = len(numbers)
currentValueNumber = 1
n = 0
while n < len(numbers):
rows.append({'row': currentValueNumber, 'number': numbers[n]})
currentValueNumber += 1
n += 1
sumLines = 0
sumNumbers = 0
sumMix = 0
squareOfs = 0
for k in rows:
sumLines += k['row']
sumNumbers += k['number']
sumMix += k['row']*k['number']
squareOfs += k['row'] ** 2
a = (total_numbers * sumMix) - (sumLines * sumNumbers)
b = (total_numbers * squareOfs) - (sumLines ** 2)
c = a/b
return c
trendValue = get_trend([2781,2667,2785,1031,646,2340,2410])
print(trendValue) # output: -139.5
I want to create a polynomial with given coefficients. This seems very simple but what I have found till now did not appear to be the thing I desired.
For example in such an environment;
n = 11
K = GF(4,'a')
R = PolynomialRing(GF(4,'a'),"x")
x = R.gen()
a = K.gen()
v = [1,a,0,0,1,1,1,a,a,0,1]
Given a list/vector v of length n (I will set this n and v at the begining), I want to get the polynomial v(x) as v[i]*x^i.
(Actually after that I am going to build the quotient ring GF(4,'a')[x] /< x^n-v(x) > after getting this v(x) from above) then I will say;
S = R.quotient(x^n-v(x), 'y')
y = S.gen()
But I couldn't write it.
This is a frequently asked question in many places so it is better to leave it here as an answer although the answer I have is so simple:
I just wrote R(v) and it gave me the polynomial:
sage
n = 11
K = GF(4,'a')
R = PolynomialRing(GF(4,'a'),"x")
x = R.gen()
a = K.gen()
v = [1,a,0,0,1,1,1,a,a,0,1]
R(v)
x^10 + a*x^8 + a*x^7 + x^6 + x^5 + x^4 + a*x + 1
Basically (that is, ignoring the specifics of your polynomial ring) you have a list/vector v of length n and you require a polynomial which is the sum of all v[i]*x^i. Note that this sum equals the matrix product V.X where V is a one row matrix (essentially equal to the vector v) and X is a column matrix consisting of powers of x. In Maxima you could write
v: [1,a,0,0,1,1,1,a,a,0,1]$
n: length(v)$
V: matrix(v)$
X: genmatrix(lambda([i,j], x^(i-1)), n, 1)$
V.X;
The output is
x^10+ax^8+ax^7+x^6+x^5+x^4+a*x+1
How can I find the line of intersection between two planes?
I know the mathematics idea, and I did the cross product between the the planes normal vectors
but how to get the line from the resulted vector programmatically
The equation of the plane is ax + by + cz + d = 0, where (a,b,c) is the plane's normal, and d is the distance to the origin. This means that every point (x,y,z) that satisfies that equation is a member of the plane.
Given two planes:
P1: a1x + b1y + c1z + d1 = 0
P2: a2x + b2y + c2z + d2 = 0
The intersection between the two is the set of points that verifies both equations. To find points along this line, you can simply pick a value for x, any value, and then solve the equations for y and z.
y = (-c1z -a1x -d1) / b1
z = ((b2/b1)*(a1x+d1) -a2x -d2)/(c2 - c1*b2/b1)
If you make x=0, this gets simpler:
y = (-c1z -d1) / b1
z = ((b2/b1)*d1 -d2)/(c2 - c1*b2/b1)
Finding the line between two planes can be calculated using a simplified version of the 3-plane intersection algorithm.
The 2'nd, "more robust method" from bobobobo's answer references the 3-plane intersection.
While this works well for 2 planes (where the 3rd plane can be calculated using the cross product of the first two), the problem can be further reduced for the 2-plane version.
No need to use a 3x3 matrix determinant,instead we can use the squared length of the cross product between the first and second plane (which is the direction of the 3'rd plane).
No need to include the 3rd planes distance,(calculating the final location).
No need to negate the distances.Save some cpu-cycles by swapping the cross product order instead.
Including this code-example, since it may not be immediately obvious.
// Intersection of 2-planes: a variation based on the 3-plane version.
// see: Graphics Gems 1 pg 305
//
// Note that the 'normal' components of the planes need not be unit length
bool isect_plane_plane_to_normal_ray(
const Plane& p1, const Plane& p2,
// output args
Vector3f& r_point, Vector3f& r_normal)
{
// logically the 3rd plane, but we only use the normal component.
const Vector3f p3_normal = p1.normal.cross(p2.normal);
const float det = p3_normal.length_squared();
// If the determinant is 0, that means parallel planes, no intersection.
// note: you may want to check against an epsilon value here.
if (det != 0.0) {
// calculate the final (point, normal)
r_point = ((p3_normal.cross(p2.normal) * p1.d) +
(p1.normal.cross(p3_normal) * p2.d)) / det;
r_normal = p3_normal;
return true;
}
else {
return false;
}
}
Adding this answer for completeness, since at time of writing, none of the answers here contain a working code-example which directly addresses the question.
Though other answers here already covered the principles.
Finding a point on the line
To get the intersection of 2 planes, you need a point on the line and the direction of that line.
Finding the direction of that line is really easy, just cross the 2 normals of the 2 planes that are intersecting.
lineDir = n1 × n2
But that line passes through the origin, and the line that runs along your plane intersections might not. So, Martinho's answer provides a great start to finding a point on the line of intersection (basically any point that is on both planes).
In case you wanted to see the derivation for how to solve this, here's the math behind it:
First let x=0. Now we have 2 unknowns in 2 equations instead of 3 unknowns in 2 equations (we arbitrarily chose one of the unknowns).
Then the plane equations are (A terms were eliminated since we chose x=0):
B1y + C1z + D1 = 0
B2y + C2z + D2 = 0
We want y and z such that those equations are both solved correctly (=0) for the B1, C1 given.
So, just multiply the top eq by (-B2/B1) to get
-B2y + (-B2/B1)*C1z + (-B2/B1)*D1 = 0
B2y + C2z + D2 = 0
Add the eqs to get
z = ( (-B2/B1)*D1 - D2 ) / (C2 * B2/B1)*C1)
Throw the z you find into the 1st equation now to find y as
y = (-D1 - C1z) / B1
Note the best variable to make 0 is the one with the lowest coefficients, because it carries no information anyway. So if C1 and C2 were both 0, choosing z=0 (instead of x=0) would be a better choice.
The above solution can still screw up if B1=0 (which isn't that unlikely). You could add in some if statements that check if B1=0, and if it is, be sure to solve for one of the other variables instead.
Solution using intersection of 3 planes
From user's answer, a closed form solution for the intersection of 3 planes was actually in Graphics Gems 1. The formula is:
P_intersection = (( point_on1 • n1 )( n2 × n3 ) + ( point_on2 • n2 )( n3 × n1 ) + ( point_on3 • n3 )( n1 × n2 )) / det(n1,n2,n3)
Actually point_on1 • n1 = -d1 (assuming you write your planes Ax + By + Cz + D=0, and not =-D). So, you could rewrite it as:
P_intersection = (( -d1 )( n2 × n3 ) + ( -d2 )( n3 × n1 ) + ( -d3 )( n1 × n2 )) / det(n1,n2,n3)
A function that intersects 3 planes:
// Intersection of 3 planes, Graphics Gems 1 pg 305
static Vector3f getIntersection( const Plane& plane1, const Plane& plane2, const Plane& plane3 )
{
float det = Matrix3f::det( plane1.normal, plane2.normal, plane3.normal ) ;
// If the determinant is 0, that means parallel planes, no intn.
if( det == 0.f ) return 0 ; //could return inf or whatever
return ( plane2.normal.cross( plane3.normal )*-plane1.d +
plane3.normal.cross( plane1.normal )*-plane2.d +
plane1.normal.cross( plane2.normal )*-plane3.d ) / det ;
}
Proof it works (yellow dot is intersection of rgb planes here)
Getting the line
Once you have a point of intersection common to the 2 planes, the line just goes
P + t*d
Where P is the point of intersection, t can go from (-inf, inf), and d is the direction vector that is the cross product of the normals of the two original planes.
The line of intersection between the red and blue planes looks like this
Efficiency and stability
The "robust" (2nd way) takes 48 elementary ops by my count, vs the 36 elementary ops that the 1st way (isolation of x,y) uses. There is a trade off between stability and # computations between these 2 ways.
It'd be pretty catastrophic to get (0,inf,inf) back from a call to the 1st way in the case that B1 was 0 and you didn't check. So adding in if statements and making sure not to divide by 0 to the 1st way may give you the stability at the cost of code bloat, and the added branching (which might be quite expensive). The 3 plane intersection method is almost branchless and won't give you infinities.
This method avoids division by zero as long as the two planes are not parallel.
If these are the planes:
A1*x + B1*y + C1*z + D1 = 0
A2*x + B2*y + C2*z + D2 = 0
1) Find a vector parallel to the line of intersection. This is also the normal of a 3rd plane which is perpendicular to the other two planes:
(A3,B3,C3) = (A1,B1,C1) cross (A2,B2,C2)
2) Form a system of 3 equations. These describe 3 planes which intersect at a point:
A1*x1 + B1*y1 + C1*z1 + D1 = 0
A2*x1 + B2*y1 + C2*z1 + D2 = 0
A3*x1 + B3*y1 + C3*z1 = 0
3) Solve them to find x1,y1,z1. This is a point on the line of intersection.
4) The parametric equations of the line of intersection are:
x = x1 + A3 * t
y = y1 + B3 * t
z = z1 + C3 * t
The determinant-based approach is neat, but it's hard to follow why it works.
Here's another way that's more intuitive.
The idea is to first go from the origin to the closest point on the first plane (p1), and then from there go to the closest point on the line of intersection of the two planes. (Along a vector that I'm calling v below.)
Given
=====
First plane: n1 • r = k1
Second plane: n2 • r = k2
Working
=======
dir = n1 × n2
p1 = (k1 / (n1 • n1)) * n1
v = n1 × dir
pt = LineIntersectPlane(line = (p1, v), plane = (n2, k2))
LineIntersectPlane
==================
#We have n2 • (p1 + lambda * v) = k2
lambda = (k2 - n2 • p1) / (n2 • v)
Return p1 + lambda * v
Output
======
Line where two planes intersect: (pt, dir)
This should give the same point as the determinant-based approach. There's almost certainly a link between the two. At least the denominator, n2 • v, is the same, if we apply the "scalar triple product" rule. So these methods are probably similar as far as condition numbers go.
Don't forget to check for (almost) parallel planes. For example: if (dir • dir < 1e-8) should work well if unit normals are used.
You can find the formula for the intersection line of two planes in this link.
P1: a1x + b1y + c1z = d1
P2: a2x + b2y + c2z = d2
n1=(a1,b1,c1); n2=(a2,b2,c2); n12=Norm[Cross[n1,n2]]^2
If n12 != 0
a1 = (d1*Norm[n2]^2 - d2*n1.n2)/n12;
a2 = (d2*Norm[n1]^2 - d1*n1.n2)/n12;
P = a1 n1 + a2 n2;
(*formula for the intersection line*)
Li[t_] := P + t*Cross[n1, n2];
The cross product of the line is the direction of the intersection line. Now you need a point in the intersection.
You can do this by taking a point on the cross product, then subtracting Normal of plane A * distance to plane A and Normal of plane B * distance to plane b. Cleaner:
p = Point on cross product
intersection point = ([p] - ([Normal of plane A] * [distance from p to plane A]) - ([Normal of plane B] * [distance from p to plane B]))
Edit:
You have two planes with two normals:
N1 and N2
The cross product is the direction of the Intersection Line:
C = N1 x N2
The class above has a function to calculate the distance between a point and a plane. Use it to get the distance of some point p on C to both planes:
p = C //p = 1 times C to get a point on C
d1 = plane1.getDistance(p)
d2 = plane2.getDistance(p)
Intersection line:
resultPoint1 = (p - (d1 * N1) - (d2 * N2))
resultPoint2 = resultPoint1 + C