The diagram and the graph
I have made the above diagram and I placed the values of 1,1 as the parameters of INTEGRAL_f and GAINBLK_f respectively,and the other parameters are as default.
I have no idea why this graph is plotted since I thought that there should be no factor(s) which compose the exponential function.
Can anyone tell me what I am missing?
That's just math. You're have the system (here noted in the Laplace domain) y = 1/s*u and apply to it the positive feedback u = u+y, hence you end up (after solving for y) with the system y = 1/(s-1)*u, which is in state space, with your initial condition of integral block
x' = x+u,
x(0) = 1,
since you have no input, you obtain
x' = x,
x(0) = 1,
which yields x(t)=exp(t). If you want to see something interesting, just take 0 as initial condition of the integral block and add an input. However, if you keep this positive feedback your system is unstable...
Related
I am new to Julia, I would like to solve this system:
where k1 and k2 are constant parameters. However, I=0 when y,0 or Ky otherwise, where k is a constant value.
I followed the tutorial about ODE. The question is, how to solve this piecewise differential equation in DifferentialEquations.jl?
Answered on the OP's cross post on Julia Discourse; copied here for completeness.
Here is a (mildly) interesting example $x''+x'+x=\pm p_1$ where the sign of $p_1$ changes when a switching manifold is encountered at $x=p_2$. To make things more interesting, consider hysteresis in the switching manifold such that $p_2\mapsto -p_2$ whenever the switching manifold is crossed.
The code is relatively straightforward; the StaticArrays/SVector/MVector can be ignored, they are only for speed.
using OrdinaryDiffEq
using StaticArrays
f(x, p, t) = SVector(x[2], -x[2]-x[1]+p[1]) # x'' + x' + x = ±p₁
h(u, t, integrator) = u[1]-integrator.p[2] # switching surface x = ±p₂;
g(integrator) = (integrator.p .= -integrator.p) # impact map (p₁, p₂) = -(p₁, p₂)
prob = ODEProblem(f, # RHS
SVector(0.0, 1.0), # initial value
(0.0, 100.0), # time interval
MVector(1.0, 1.0)) # parameters
cb = ContinuousCallback(h, g)
sol = solve(prob, Vern6(), callback=cb, dtmax=0.1)
Then plot sol[2,:] against sol[1,:] to see the phase plane - a nice non-smooth limit cycle in this case.
Note that if you try to use interpolation of the resulting solution (i.e., sol(t)) you need to be very careful around the points that have a discontinuous derivative as the interpolant goes a little awry. That's why I've used dtmax=0.1 to get a smoother solution output in this case. (I'm probably not using the most appropriate integrator either but it's the one that I was using in a previous piece of code that I copied-and-pasted.)
I have to plot the function f(x) = ln(20 - e^x) in Octave, and I use the command:
x = -5:0.1:5;
y = log(20 - exp(x));
plot(x,y)
But the graph is not correct, because when I check in Wolfram Alpha it is not the same. Any help is appreciated!
You plotted in Octave ln(20-e^x):
whereas what you put into Wolfram Alpha was e^x + e^y = 20, which looks like this:
Which is the exact same. The only difference here is that for e^x+e^y=20 Wolfram Alpha plots only the real solution (the blue line), whereas for ln(20-e^x) both Wolfram Alpha and Octave plot the full set of solution, so including imaginary solutions (although Octave plots only the real part of the complex solution).
If you look carefully you see that for x<ln(20)the imaginary part shown in Wolfram Alpha is 0, whereas for x>ln(20) there's an imaginary part (incidentally of y=ln(20)). Octave just plots only the real parts, as it ignores imaginary parts when plotting a complex signal. Just check whos y on your command line and it'll tell you it is a complex variable.
I'm on MATLAB, but your console output should be the similar:
>> x = -5:0.1:5;
y = log(20 - exp(x));
plot(x,y)
Warning: Imaginary parts of complex X and/or Y arguments ignored
>> whos y
Name Size Bytes Class Attributes
y 1x101 1616 double complex
which tells you A) when you plot the function that it is a complex signal and B) that y is indeed complex, as it should be for values of x>ln(20).
I would like to draw an animation of a polar curve (a spiral) being graphed. I am using javascript and canvas. Currently, I am using setInterval to call a draw function, which graphs an x and y coordinate found from a parametric representation of the polar curve (x and y in terms of theta). I am incrementing theta by 0.01, from 0 to 2*pi, once for every call to draw(). The problem is that I wish for the animation to draw the same amount of the curve for each call to draw, so that the drawing appears to progress with uniform speed. It doesn't matter if the time between each call to draw is different; I just need the speed (in terms of pixels drawn / # of calls to draw) to be constant for the entire awing. In other words, I need the arc length of the segment of the polar graph drawn for each call to draw to be the same. I have no idea how to go about this. Any help/sugestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks
Let f(z) be the theta variable you are referring to in your question. Here are two parametric equations that should be very similar to what you have:
x(f(z)) = f(z)cos(f(z))
y(f(z)) = f(z)sin(f(z))
We can define the position p(f(z)) at f(z) as
p(f(z)) = [x(f(z)), y(f(z))]
The speed s(f(z)) at f(z) is the length of the derivative of p at f(z).
x'(f(z)) = f'(z)cos(f(z)) - f(z)f'(z)sin(f(z))
y'(f(z)) = f'(z)sin(f(z)) + f(z)f'(z)cos(f(z))
s(f(z)) = length(p'(f(z))) = length([x'(f(z)), y'(f(z))])
= length([f'(z)cos(f(z)) - f(z)f'(z)sin(f(z)), f'(z)sin(f(z)) + f(z)f'(z)cos(f(z))])
= sqrt([f'(z)cos(f(z))]2 + [f(z)f'(z)sin(f(z))]2 + [f'(z)sin(f(z))]2 + [f(z)f'(z)cos(f(z))]2)
= sqrt(f'(z) + [f(z)f'(z)]2)
If you want the speed s(f(z)) to be constant at C as z increases at a constant rate of 1, you need to solve this first-order nonlinear ordinary differential equation:
s(f(z)) = sqrt(f'(z) + [f(z)f'(z)]2) = C
http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%28f%27%28z%29+%2B+%5Bf%28z%29f%27%28z%29%5D%5E2%29+%3D+C
Solving this would give you a function theta = f(z) that you could use to compute theta as you keep increasing z. However, this differential equation has no closed form solution.
In other words, you'll have to make guesses at how much you should increase theta at each step, doing binary search on the delta to add to theta and line integrals over p(t) to evaluate how far each guess moves.
Easier method - change the parameter to setInterval proportional to the step arc length. That way you don't have to try to invert the arc length equation. If the interval starts getting too large, you can adjust the step size, but you can do so approximately.
I have two sequences of length n and m. Each is a sequence of points of the form (x,y) and represent curves in an image. I need to find how different (or similar) these sequences are given that fact that
one sequence is likely longer than the other (i.e., one can be half or a quarter as long as the other, but if they trace approximately the same curve, they are the same)
these sequences could be in opposite directions (i.e., sequence 1 goes from left to right, while sequence 2 goes from right to left)
I looked into some difference estimates like Levenshtein as well as edit-distances in structural similarity matching for protein folding, but none of them seem to do the trick. I could write my own brute-force method but I want to know if there is a better way.
Thanks.
Do you mean that you are trying to match curves that have been translated in x,y coordinates? One technique from image processing is to use chain codes [I'm looking for a decent reference, but all I can find right now is this] to encode each sequence and then compare those chain codes. You could take the sum of the differences (modulo 8) and if the result is 0, the curves are identical. Since the sequences are of different lengths and don't necessarily start at the same relative location, you would have to shift one sequence and do this again and again, but you only have to create the chain codes once. The only way to detect if one of the sequences is reversed is to try both the forward and reverse of one of the sequences. If the curves aren't exactly alike, the sum will be greater than zero but it is not straightforward to tell how different the curves are simply from the sum.
This method will not be rotationally invariant. If you need a method that is rotationally invariant, you should look at Boundary-Centered Polar Encoding. I can't find a free reference for that, but if you need me to describe it, let me know.
A method along these lines might work:
For both sequences:
Fit a curve through the sequence. Make sure that you have a continuous one-to-one function from [0,1] to points on this curve. That is, for each (real) number between 0 and 1, this function returns a point on the curve belonging to it. By tracing the function for all numbers from 0 to 1, you get the entire curve.
One way to fit a curve would be to draw a straight line between each pair of consecutive points (it is not a nice curve, because it has sharp bends, but it might be fine for your purpose). In that case, the function can be obtained by calculating the total length of all the line segments (Pythagoras). The point on the curve corresponding to a number Y (between 0 and 1) corresponds to the point on the curve that has a distance Y * (total length of all line segments) from the first point on the sequence, measured by traveling over the line segments (!!).
Now, after we have obtained such a function F(double) for the first sequence, and G(double) for the second sequence, we can calculate the similarity as follows:
double epsilon = 0.01;
double curveDistanceSquared = 0.0;
for(double d=0.0;d<1.0;d=d+epsilon)
{
Point pointOnCurve1 = F(d);
Point pointOnCurve2 = G(d);
//alternatively, use G(1.0-d) to check whether the second sequence is reversed
double distanceOfPoints = pointOnCurve1.EuclideanDistance(pointOnCurve2);
curveDistanceSquared = curveDistanceSquared + distanceOfPoints * distanceOfPoints;
}
similarity = 1.0/ curveDistanceSquared;
Possible improvements:
-Find an improved way to fit the curves. Note that you still need the function that traces the curve for the above method to work.
-When calculating the distance, consider reparametrizing the function G in such a way that the distance is minimized. (This means you have an increasing function R, such that R(0) = 0 and R(1)=1,
but which is otherwise general. When calculating the distance you use
Point pointOnCurve1 = F(d);
Point pointOnCurve2 = G(R(d));
Subsequently, you try to choose R in such a way that the distance is minimized. (to see what happens, note that G(R(d)) also traces the curve)).
Why not do some sort of curve fitting procedure (least-squares whether it be ordinary or non-linear) and see if the coefficients on the shape parameters are the same. If you run it as a panel-data sort of model, there are explicit statistical tests whether sets of parameters are significantly different from one another. That would solve the problem of the the same curve but sampled at different resolutions.
Step 1: Canonicalize the orientation. For example, let's say that all curved start at the endpoint with lowest lexicographic order.
def inCanonicalOrientation(path):
return path if path[0]<path[-1] else reversed(path)
Step 2: You can either be roughly accurate, or very accurate. If you wish to be very accurate, calculate a spline, or fit both curves to a polynomial of appropriate degree, and compare coefficients. If you'd like just a rough estimate, do as follows:
def resample(path, numPoints)
pathLength = pathLength(path) #write this function
segments = generateSegments(path)
currentSegment = next(segments)
segmentsSoFar = [currentSegment]
for i in range(numPoints):
samplePosition = i/(numPoints-1)*pathLength
while samplePosition > pathLength(segmentsSoFar)+currentSegment.length:
currentSegment = next(segments)
segmentsSoFar.insert(currentSegment)
difference = samplePosition - pathLength(segmentsSoFar)
howFar = difference/currentSegment.length
yield Point((1-howFar)*currentSegment.start + (howFar)*currentSegment.end)
This can be modified from a linear resampling to something better.
def error(pathA, pathB):
pathA = inCanonicalOrientation(pathA)
pathB = inCanonicalOrientation(pathB)
higherResolution = max([len(pathA), len(pathB)])
resampledA = resample(pathA, higherResolution)
resampledB = resample(pathA, higherResolution)
error = sum(
abs(pointInA-pointInB)
for pointInA,pointInB in zip(pathA,pathB)
)
averageError = error / len(pathAorB)
normalizedError = error / Z(AorB)
return normalizedError
Where Z is something like the "diameter" of your path, perhaps the maximum Euclidean distance between any two points in a path.
I would use a curve-fitting procedure, but also throw in a constant term, i.e. 0 =B0 + B1*X + B2*Y + B3*X*Y + B4*X^2 etc. This would catch the translational variance and then you can do a statistical comparison of the estimated coefficients of the curves formed by the two sets of points as a way of classifying them. I'm assuming you'll have to do bi-variate interpolation if the data form arbitrary curves in the x-y plane.
At present I have a control to which I need to add the facility to apply various acuteness (or sensitivity). The problem is best illustrated as an image:
Graph http://img87.imageshack.us/img87/7886/control.png
As you can see, I have X and Y axess that both have arbitrary limits of 100 - that should suffice for this explanation. At present, my control is the red line (linear behaviour), but I would like to add the ability for the other 3 curves (or more) i.e. if a control is more sensitive then a setting will ignore the linear setting and go for one of the three lines. The starting point will always be 0, and the end point will always be 100.
I know that an exponential is too steep, but can't seem to figure a way forward. Any suggestions please?
The curves you have illustrated look a lot like gamma correction curves. The idea there is that the minimum and maximum of the range stays the same as the input, but the middle is bent like you have in your graphs (which I might note is not the circular arc which you would get from the cosine implementation).
Graphically, it looks like this:
(source: wikimedia.org)
So, with that as the inspiration, here's the math...
If your x values ranged from 0 to 1, the function is rather simple:
y = f(x, gamma) = x ^ gamma
Add an xmax value for scaling (i.e. x = 0 to 100), and the function becomes:
y = f(x, gamma) = ((x / xmax) ^ gamma) * xmax
or alternatively:
y = f(x, gamma) = (x ^ gamma) / (xmax ^ (gamma - 1))
You can take this a step further if you want to add a non-zero xmin.
When gamma is 1, the line is always perfectly linear (y = x). If x is less than 1, your curve bends upward. If x is greater than 1, your curve bends downward. The reciprocal value of gamma will convert the value back to the original (x = f(y, 1/g) = f(f(x, g), 1/g).
Just adjust the value of gamma according to your own taste and application needs. Since you're wanting to give the user multiple options for "sensitivity enhancement", you may want to give your users choices on a linear scale, say ranging from -4 (least sensitive) to 0 (no change) to 4 (most sensitive), and scale your internal gamma values with a power function. In other words, give the user choices of (-4, -3, -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, 3, 4), but translate that to gamma values of (5.06, 3.38, 2.25, 1.50, 1.00, 0.67, 0.44, 0.30, 0.20).
Coding that in C# might look something like this:
public class SensitivityAdjuster {
public SensitivityAdjuster() { }
public SensitivityAdjuster(int level) {
SetSensitivityLevel(level);
}
private double _Gamma = 1.0;
public void SetSensitivityLevel(int level) {
_Gamma = Math.Pow(1.5, level);
}
public double Adjust(double x) {
return (Math.Pow((x / 100), _Gamma) * 100);
}
}
To use it, create a new SensitivityAdjuster, set the sensitivity level according to user preferences (either using the constructor or the method, and -4 to 4 would probably be reasonable level values) and call Adjust(x) to get the adjusted output value. If you wanted a wider or narrower range of reasonable levels, you would reduce or increase that 1.5 value in the SetSensitivityLevels method. And of course the 100 represents your maximum x value.
I propose a simple formula, that (I believe) captures your requirement. In order to have a full "quarter circle", which is your extreme case, you would use (1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100.
What I suggest is that you take a weighted average between y=x and y=(1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100. For example, to have very close to linear (99% linear), take:
y = 0.99*x + 0.01*[(1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100]
Or more generally, say the level of linearity is L, and it's in the interval [0, 1], your formula will be:
y = L*x + (1-L)*[(1-cos((x*pi)/(2*100)))*100]
EDIT: I changed cos(x/100) to cos((x*pi)/(2*100)), because for the cos result to be in the range [1,0] X should be in the range of [0,pi/2] and not [0,1], sorry for the initial mistake.
You're probably looking for something like polynomial interpolation. A quadratic/cubic/quartic interpolation ought to give you the sorts of curves you show in the question. The differences between the three curves you show could probably be achieved just by adjusting the coefficients (which indirectly determine steepness).
The graph of y = x^p for x from 0 to 1 will do what you want as you vary p from 1 (which will give the red line) upwards. As p increases the curve will be 'pushed in' more and more. p doesn't have to be an integer.
(You'll have to scale to get 0 to 100 but I'm sure you can work that out)
I vote for Rax Olgud's general idea, with one modification:
y = alpha * x + (1-alpha)*(f(x/100)*100)
alt text http://www4c.wolframalpha.com/Calculate/MSP/MSP4501967d41e1aga1b3i00004bdeci2b6be2a59b?MSPStoreType=image/gif&s=6
where f(0) = 0, f(1) = 1, f(x) is superlinear, but I don't know where this "quarter circle" idea came from or why 1-cos(x) would be a good choice.
I'd suggest f(x) = xk where k = 2, 3, 4, 5, whatever gives you the desired degre of steepness for &alpha = 0. Pick a value for k as a fixed number, then vary α to choose your particular curve.
For problems like this, I will often get a few points from a curve and throw it through a curve fitting program. There are a bunch of them out there. Here's one with a 7-day free trial.
I've learned a lot by trying different models. Often you can get a pretty simple expression to come close to your curve.