I want to implement a simproc capable of rewriting the argument of sin into a linear combination x + k * pi + k' * pi / 2 (where ideally k' = 0 or k' = 1) and then apply existing lemmas about additions of arguments in sines.
The steps could be as follows:
Pattern match the goal to extract the argument of sin(expr):
fun dest_sine t =
case t of
(#{term "(sin):: real ⇒ real"} $ t') => t'
| _ => raise TERM ("dest_sine", [t]) ;
Prove that for some x, k, k': expr = x + k*pi + k' * pi/2.
Use existing lemmas to rewrite to a simpler trigonometric function:
fun rewriter x k k' =
if (k mod 2 = 0 andalso k' = 0) then #{term "sin"} $ x
else if (k mod 2 = 0 andalso k' = 1) then #{term "cos"} $ x
else if (k mod 2 = 1 andalso k' = 0) then #{term "-sin"} $ x
else #{term "-cos"} $ x
I'm stuck at step two. The idea is to use algebra simplifications to obtain the x,k,k' where the theorem holds. I believe schematic goals should do this but I haven't ever used them.
My thoughts
Could I rather assume that the expression is of this form and let the simplifier find it so that the simproc can be triggered?
If I first start assuming the linear form x + k*pi + k' * pi/2 then:
Extract x,k,k' from this combination.
Apply rewriter and obtain the corresponding term to be rewritten two.
Apply in a sequence: rules dealing with + pi/2, rules dealing with + 2 pi
I would start easy and ignore the pi / 2 part for now.
You probably want to build a simproc that matches on anything of the form sin x. Then you want to write a conversion that takes that term x (which is assumed to be a sum of several terms) and brings it into the form a + of_int b * p.
A conversion is essentially a function of type cterm → thm which takes a cterm ct and returns a theorem of the form ct ≡ …, i.e. it's a form of deterministic rewriting (a conversion can also fail by throwing a CTERM exception, by convention). There are a lot of combinators for building and using these in Pure/conv.ML.
This is probably a bit fiddly. You essentially have to descend through the term and, for each atom (i.e. anything not of the form _ + _) you have to figure out whether it can be brought into the form of_int … * pi (e.g. again by writing a conversion that does this transformation – to make it easy you can omit this part so that your procedure only works if the terms are already in that form) and then group all the terms of the form of_int … * pi to the right and all the terms not of that form to the left using associativity and commutativity.
I would suggest this:
Define a function SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x n = x + of_int n * pi
Write a conversion sin_atom_conv that rewrites of_int n * pi to SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM 0 n and everything else into SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x 0
Write a conversion that descends through +, applies sin_atom_conv to every atom, and then applies some kind of combination rule like SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x1 n1 + SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x2 n2 = SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM (x1 + x2) (n1 + n2)
In the end, you have rewritten your entire form to the form sin (SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x n), and then you can apply some suitable rule to that.
It's not quite clear to me how to best handle the parity of n. You could rewrite sin (SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM x n) = (-1) ^ nat ¦n¦ * sin x but I'm not sure if that's what the user really wants in most cases. It might make more sense to only do that if you can deduce the parity of n statically (e.g. by using the simplifier) and then directly simplify to sin x or -sin x.
The situation becomes even more complicated if you want to include halves of π. You can of course extend SIN_SIMPROC_ATOM by a second term for halves of π (and one for doubles of π as well to make it more uniform). Or you could ad all of them together so that you just have a single integer n that describes your multiples of π/2, and k multiples of π simply contribute 2k to that term. And then you have to figure out what n mod 4 is – possibly again with the simplifier or with some clever static method.
Related
I'm trying to solve this equation:
(b(ax+b ) - c) % n = e
Where everything is given except x
I tried the approach of :
(A + x) % B = C
(B + C - A) % B = x
where A is (-c) and then manually solve for x given my other subs, but I am not getting the correct output. Would I possibly need to use eea? Any help would be appreciated! I understand this question has been asked, I tried their solutions but it doesn't work for me.
(b*(a*x+b) - c) % n = e
can be rewritten as:
(b*a*x) % n = (e - b*b + c) % n
x = ((e - b*b + c) * modular_inverse(b*a, n)) % n
where the modular inverse of u, modular_inverse(u, n), is a number v such that u*v % n == 1. See this question for code to calculate the modular inverse.
Some caveats:
When simplifying modular equations, you can never simply divide, you need to multiply with the modular inverse.
There is no straightforward formula to calculate the modular inverse, but there is a simple, quick algorithm to calculate it, similar to calculating the gcd.
The modular inverse doesn't always exist.
Depending on the programming language, when one or both arguments are negative, the result of modulo can also be negative.
As every solution works for every x modulo n, for small n only the numbers from 0 till n-1 need to be tested, so in many cases a simple loop is sufficient.
What language are you doing this in, and are the variables constant?
Here's a quick way to determine the possible values of x in Java:
for (int x = -1000; x < 1000; x++){
if ((b*((a*x)+b) - c) % n == e){
System.out.println(x);
}
}
I'm trying to find time complexity (big O) of a recursive formula.
I tried to find a solution, you may see the formula and my solution below:
Like Brenner said, your last assumption is false. Here is why: Let's take the definition of O(n) from the Wikipedia page (using n instead of x):
f(n) = O(n) if and only if there exist constants c, n0 s.t. |f(n)| <= c |g(n)|, for alln >= n0.
We want to check if O(2^n^2) = O(2^n). Clearly, 2^n^2 is in O(2^n^2), so let's pick f(n) = 2^n^2 and check if this is in O(2^n). Put this into the above formula:
exists c, n0: 2^n^2 <= c * 2^n for all n >= n0
Let's see if we can find suitable constant values n0 and c for which the above is true, or if we can derive a contradiction to proof that it is not true:
Take the log on both sides:
log(2^n^2) <= log(c * 2 ^ n)
Simplify:
2 ^n log(2) <= log(c) + n * log(2)
Divide by log(2):
n^2 <= log(c)/log(2) * n
It's easy to see know that there is no c, n0 for which the above is true for all n >= n0, thus O(2^n^2) = O(n^2) is not a valid assumption.
The last assumption you've specified with the question mark is false! Do not make such assumptions.
The rest of the manipulations you've supplied seem to be correct. But they actually bring you nowhere.
You should have finished this exercise in the middle of your draft:
T(n) = O(T(1)^(3^log2(n)))
And that's it. That's the solution!
You could actually claim that
3^log2(n) == n^log2(3) ==~ n^1.585
and then you get:
T(n) = O(T(1)^(n^1.585))
which is somewhat similar to the manipulations you've made in the second part of the draft.
So you can also leave it like this. But you cannot mess with the exponent. Changing the value of the exponent changes the big-O classification.
I am trying to understand Big-O notation through a book I have and it is covering Big-O by using functions although I am a bit confused. The book says that O(g(n)) where g(n) is the upper bound of f(n). So I understand that means that g(n) gives the max rate of growth for f(n) at larger values of n.
and that there exists an n_0 where the rate of growth of cg(n) (where c is some constant) and f(n) have the same rate of growth.
But what I am confused is on these examples on finding Big O in mathmatical functions.
This book says findthe upper bound for f(n) = n^4 +100n^2 + 50
they then state that n^4 +100n^2 + 50 <= 2n^4 (unsure why the 2n^4)
then they some how find n_0 =11 and c = 2, I understand why the big O is O(n^4) but I am just confused about the rest.
This is all discouraging as I don't understand but I feel like this is an important topic that I must understand.
If any one is curious the book is Data Structures and Algorithms Made Easy by Narasimha Karumanchi
Not sure if this post belongs here or in the math board.
Preparations
First, lets state, loosely, the definition of f being in O(g(n)) (note: O(g(n)) is a set of functions, so to be picky, we say that f is in O(...), rather than f(n) being in O(...)).
If a function f(n) is in O(g(n)), then c · g(n) is an upper bound on
f(n), for some constant c such that f(n) is always ≤ c · g(n),
for large enough n (i.e. , n ≥ n0 for some constant n0).
Hence, to show that f(n) is in O(g(n)), we need to find a set of constants (c, n0) that fulfils
f(n) < c · g(n), for all n ≥ n0, (+)
but this set is not unique. I.e., the problem of finding the constants (c, n0) such that (+) holds is degenerate. In fact, if any such pair of constants exists, there will exist an infinite amount of different such pairs.
Showing that f ∈ O(n^4)
Now, lets proceed and look at the example that confused you
Find an upper asymptotic bound for the function
f(n) = n^4 + 100n^2 + 50 (*)
One straight-forward approach is to express the lower-order terms in (*) in terms of the higher order terms, specifically, w.r.t. bounds (... < ...).
Hence, we see if we can find a lower bound on n such that the following holds
100n^2 + 50 ≤ n^4, for all n ≥ ???, (i)
We can easily find when equality holds in (i) by solving the equation
m = n^2, m > 0
m^2 - 100m - 50 = 0
(m - 50)^2 - 50^2 - 50 = 0
(m - 50)^2 = 2550
m = 50 ± sqrt(2550) = { m > 0, single root } ≈ 100.5
=> n ≈ { n > 0 } ≈ 10.025
Hence, (i) holds for n ≳ 10.025, bu we'd much rather present this bound on n with a neat integer value, hence rounding up to 11:
100n^2 + 50 ≤ n^4, for all n ≥ 11, (ii)
From (ii) it's apparent that the following holds
f(n) = n^4 + 100n^2 + 50 ≤ n^4 + n^4 = 2 · n^4, for all n ≥ 11, (iii)
And this relation is exactly (+) with c = 2, n0 = 11 and g(n) = n^4, and hence we've shown that f ∈ O(n^4). Note again, however, that the choice of constants c and n0 is one of convenience, that is not unique. Since we've shown that (+) holds for on set of constants (c,n0), we can show that it holds for an infinite amount of different such choices of constants (e.g., it naturally holds for c=10 and n0=20, ..., and so on).
I am having some troubles with my CS assignment. I am trying to call another rule that I created previously within a new rule that will calculate the factorial of a power function (EX. Y = (N^X)!). I think the problem with my code is that Y in exp(Y,X,N) is not carrying over when I call factorial(Y,Z), I am not entirely sure though. I have been trying to find an example of this, but I haven been able to find anything.
I am not expecting an answer since this is homework, but any help would be greatly appreciated.
Here is my code:
/* 1.2: Write recursive rules exp(Y, X, N) to compute mathematical function Y = X^N, where Y is used
to hold the result, X and N are non-negative integers, and X and N cannot be 0 at the same time
as 0^0 is undefined. The program must print an error message if X = N = 0.
*/
exp(_,0,0) :-
write('0^0 is undefined').
exp(1,_,0).
exp(Y,X,N) :-
N > 0, !, N1 is N - 1, exp(Y1, X, N1), Y is X * Y1.
/* 1.3: Write recursive rules factorial(Y,X,N) to compute Y = (X^N)! This function can be described as the
factorial of exp. The rules must use the exp that you designed.
*/
factorial(0,X) :-
X is 1.
factorial(N,X) :-
N> 0, N1 is N - 1, factorial(N1,X1), X is X1 * N.
factorial(Y,X,N) :-
exp(Y,X,N), factorial(Y,Z).
The Z variable mentioned in factorial/3 (mentioned only once; so-called 'singleton variable', cannot ever get unified with anything ...).
Noticed comments under question, short-circuiting it to _ won't work, you have to unify it with a sensible value (what do you want to compute / link head of the clause with exp and factorial through parameters => introduce some parameter "in the middle"/not mentioned in the head).
Edit: I'll rename your variables for you maybe you'll se more clearly what you did:
factorial(Y,X,Result) :-
exp(Y,X,Result), factorial(Y,UnusedResult).
now you should see what your factorial/3 really computes, and how to fix it.
For an ocean shader, I need a fast function that computes a very approximate value for sin(x). The only requirements are that it is periodic, and roughly resembles a sine wave.
The taylor series of sin is too slow, since I'd need to compute up to the 9th power of x just to get a full period.
Any suggestions?
EDIT: Sorry I didn't mention, I can't use a lookup table since this is on the vertex shader. A lookup table would involve a texture sample, which on the vertex shader is slower than the built in sin function.
It doesn't have to be in any way accurate, it just has to look nice.
Use a Chebyshev approximation for as many terms as you need. This is particularly easy if your input angles are constrained to be well behaved (-π .. +π or 0 .. 2π) so you do not have to reduce the argument to a sensible value first. You might use 2 or 3 terms instead of 9.
You can make a look-up table with sin values for some values and use linear interpolation between that values.
A rational algebraic function approximation to sin(x), valid from zero to π/2 is:
f = (C1 * x) / (C2 * x^2 + 1.)
with the constants:
c1 = 1.043406062
c2 = .2508691922
These constants were found by least-squares curve fitting. (Using subroutine DHFTI, by Lawson & Hanson).
If the input is outside [0, 2π], you'll need to take x mod 2 π.
To handle negative numbers, you'll need to write something like:
t = MOD(t, twopi)
IF (t < 0.) t = t + twopi
Then, to extend the range to 0 to 2π, reduce the input with something like:
IF (t < pi) THEN
IF (t < pi/2) THEN
x = t
ELSE
x = pi - t
END IF
ELSE
IF (t < 1.5 * pi) THEN
x = t - pi
ELSE
x = twopi - t
END IF
END IF
Then calculate:
f = (C1 * x) / (C2 * x*x + 1.0)
IF (t > pi) f = -f
The results should be within about 5% of the real sine.
Well, you don't say how accurate you need it to be. The sine can be approximated by straight lines of slopes 2/pi and -2/pi on intervals [0, pi/2], [pi/2, 3*pi/2], [3*pi/2, 2*pi]. This approximation can be had for the cost of a multiplication and an addition after reducing the angle mod 2*pi.
Using a lookup table is probably the best way to control the tradeoff between speed and accuracy.