Image a graph with x and y coordinates.
I am given the X and Y values of the graph and i need a formula to determine the index of the tile.
We can try to use a programming based solution here, namely writing a double for loop which will iterate over the tiles.
for (int row=1; row <= 4; ++row) {
for (int col=1; col <= 5; ++col) {
int index = (row - 1) * 5 + (col - 1);
}
}
Assuming that the Y values correspond to the rows, and the X values to the columns, this yields the following formula:
index = 5*(Y - 1) + (X - 1)
Demo
The above demo is in C, though it should run in several other languages with little modification.
Related
So I searched the in internet looking for programs with Cramer's Rule and there were some few, but apparently these examples were for fixed matrices only like 2x2 or 4x4.
However, I am looking for a way to solve a NxN Matrix. So I started and reached the point of asking the user for the size of the matrix and asked the user to input the values of the matrix but then I don't know how to move on from here.
As in I guess my next step is to apply Cramer's rule and get the answers but I just don't know how.This is the step I'm missing. can anybody help me please?
First, you need to calculate the determinant of your equations system matrix - that is the matrix, that consists of the coefficients (from the left-hand side of the equations) - let it be D.
Then, to calculate the value of a certain variable, you need to take the matrix of your system (from the previous step), replace the coefficients of the corresponding column with constant terms (from the right-hand side), calculate the determinant of resulting matrix - let it be C, and divide C by D.
A bit more about the replacement from the previous step: say, your matrix if 3x3 (as in the image) - so, you have a system of equations, where every a coefficient is multiplied by x, every b - by y, and every c by z, and ds are the constant terms. So, to calculate y, you replace those coefficients that are multiplied by y - bs in this case, with ds.
You perform the second step for every variable and your system gets solved.
You can find an example in https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Cramer%27s_rule#C
Although the specific example deals with a 4X4 matrix the code is written to accommodate any size square matrix.
What you need is calculate the determinant. Cramer's rule is just for the determinant of a NxN matrix
if N is not big, you can use the Cramer's rule(see code below), which is quite straightforward. However, this method is not efficient; if your N is big, you need to resort to other methods, such as lu decomposition
Assuming your data is double, and result can be hold by double.
#include <malloc.h>
#include <stdio.h>
double det(double * matrix, int n) {
if( 1 >= n ) return matrix[ 0 ];
double *subMatrix = (double*)malloc(( n - 1 )*( n - 1 ) * sizeof(double));
double result = 0.0;
for( int i = 0; i < n; ++i ) {
for( int j = 0; j < n - 1; ++j ) {
for( int k = 0; k < i; ++k )
subMatrix[ j*( n - 1 ) + k ] = matrix[ ( j + 1 )*n + k ];
for( int k = i + 1; k < n; ++k )
subMatrix[ j*( n - 1 ) + ( k - 1 ) ] = matrix[ ( j + 1 )*n + k ];
}
if( i % 2 == 0 )
result += matrix[ 0 * n + i ] * det(subMatrix, n - 1);
else
result -= matrix[ 0 * n + i ] * det(subMatrix, n - 1);
}
free(subMatrix);
return result;
}
int main() {
double matrix[ ] = { 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,2,6,4,8,3,1,1,2 };
printf("%lf\n", det(matrix, 4));
return 0;
}
I want to solve a mathematical problem in a fastest possible way.
I have a set of natural numbers between 1 to n, for example {1,2,3,4,n=5} and I want to calculate a formula like this:
s = 1*2*3*4+1*2*3*5+1*2*4*5+1*3*4*5+2*3*4*5
as you can see, each element in the sum is a multiplications of n-1 numbers in the set. For example in (1*2*3*4), 5 is excluded and in (1*2*3*5), 4 is excluded. I know some of the multiplications are repeated, for example (1*2) is repeated in 3 of the multiplications. How can I solve this problem with least number of multiplications.
Sorry for bad English.
Thanks.
Here is a way that does not "cheat" by replacing multiplication with repeated addition or by using division. The idea is to replace your expression with
1*2*3*4 + 5*(1*2*3 + 4*(1*2 + 3*(1 + 2)))
This used 9 multiplications for the numbers 1 through 5. In general I think the multiplication count would be one less than the (n-1)th triangular number, n * (n - 1) / 2 - 1. Here is Python code that stores intermediate factorial values to reduce the number of multiplications to just 6, or in general 2 * n - 4, and the addition count to the same (but half of them are just adding 1):
def f(n):
fact = 1
term = 2
sum = 3
for j in range(2, n):
fact *= j
term = (j + 1) * sum
sum = fact + term
return sum
The only way to find which algorithm is the fastest is to code all of them in one language, and run each using a timer.
The following would be the most straightforward answer.
def f(n):
result = 0
nList = [i+1 for i in range(n)]
for i in range(len(nList)):
result += reduce(lambda x, y: x*y,(nList[:i]+nList[i+1:]))
return result
Walkthrough - use the reduce function to multiply all list's of length n-1 and add to the variable result.
If you just want to minimise the number of multiplications, you can replace all the multiplications by additions, like this:
// Compute 1*2*…*n
mult_all(n):
if n = 1
return 1
res = 0
// by adding 1*2*…*(n-1) an entirety of n times
for i = 1 to n do
res += mult_all(n-1)
return res
// Compute sum of 1*2*…*(i-1)*(i+1)*…*n
sum_of_mult_all_but_one(n):
if n = 1
return 0
// by computing 1*2*…*(n-1) + (sum 1*2*…*(i-1)*(i+1)*…*(n-1))*n
res = mult_all(n-1)
for i = 1 to n do
res += sum_of_mult_all_but_one(n-1)
return res
Here is an answer that would work with javascript. It is not the fastest way because it is not optimized, but it should work if you want to just find the answer.
function combo(n){
var mult = 1;
var sum = 0;
for (var i = 1; i <= n; i++){
mult = 1;
for (var j = 1; j<= n; j++){
if(j != i){
mult = mult*j;
}
}
sum += mult;
}
return (sum);
}
alert(combo(n));
While programming I often find myself needing to calculate something like:
x = (y / n) + (y % n ? 1 : 0);
Or more explicitly:
x = y / n;
if (y % n != 0) {
x = x + 1;
}
Is there a more elegant way to achieve this value? Can it be achieved without using a conditional expression?
So, you want the integer division to round up instead of down. You can fake this by adding n-1 to the numerator:
x = (y + n - 1) / n;
That way you shift the value it'll be rounded down to just enough to give you the desired outcome.
I have 2 tables of values and want to scale the first one so that it matches the 2nd one as good as possible. Both have the same length. If both are drawn as graphs in a diagram they should be as close to each other as possible. But I do not want quadratic, but simple linear weights.
My problem is, that I have no idea how to actually compute the best scaling factor because of the Abs function.
Some pseudocode:
//given:
float[] table1= ...;
float[] table2= ...;
//wanted:
float factor= ???; // I have no idea how to compute this
float remainingDifference=0;
for(int i=0; i<length; i++)
{
float scaledValue=table1[i] * factor;
//Sum up the differences. I use the Abs function because negative differences are differences too.
remainingDifference += Abs(scaledValue - table2[i]);
}
I want to compute the scaling factor so that the remainingDifference is minimal.
Simple linear weights is hard like you said.
a_n = first sequence
b_n = second sequence
c = scaling factor
Your residual function is (sums are from i=1 to N, the number of points):
SUM( |a_i - c*b_i| )
Taking the derivative with respect to c yields:
d/dc SUM( |a_i - c*b_i| )
= SUM( b_i * (a_i - c*b_i)/|a_i - c*b_i| )
Setting to 0 and solving for c is hard. I don't think there's an analytic way of doing that. You may want to try https://math.stackexchange.com/ to see if they have any bright ideas.
However if you work with quadratic weights, it becomes significantly simpler:
d/dc SUM( (a_i - c*b_i)^2 )
= SUM( 2*(a_i - c*b_i)* -c )
= -2c * SUM( a_i - c*b_i ) = 0
=> SUM(a_i) - c*SUM(b_i) = 0
=> c = SUM(a_i) / SUM(b_i)
I strongly suggest the latter approach if you can.
I would suggest trying some sort of variant on Newton Raphson.
Construct a function Diff(k) that looks at the difference in area between your two graphs between fixed markers A and B.
mathematically I guess it would be integral ( x = A to B ){ f(x) - k * g(x) }dx
anyway realistically you could just subtract the values,
like if you range from X = -10 to 10, and you have a data point for f(i) and g(i) on each integer i in [-10, 10], (ie 21 datapoints )
then you just sum( i = -10 to 10 ){ f(i) - k * g(i) }
basically you would expect this function to look like a parabola -- there will be an optimum k, and deviating slightly from it in either direction will increase the overall area difference
and the bigger the difference, you would expect the bigger the gap
so, this should be a pretty smooth function ( if you have a lot of data points )
so you want to minimise Diff(k)
so you want to find whether derivative ie d/dk Diff(k) = 0
so just do Newton Raphson on this new function D'(k)
kick it off at k=1 and it should zone in on a solution pretty fast
that's probably going to give you an optimal computation time
if you want something simpler, just start with some k1 and k2 that are either side of 0
so say Diff(1.5) = -3 and Diff(2.9) = 7
so then you would pick a k say 3/10 of the way (10 = 7 - -3) between 1.5 and 2.9
and depending on whether that yields a positive or negative value, use it as the new k1 or k2, rinse and repeat
In case anyone stumbles upon this in the future, here is some code (c++)
The trick is to first sort the samples by the scaling factor that would result in the best fit for the 2 samples each. Then start at both ends iterate to the factor that results in the minimum absolute deviation (L1-norm).
Everything except for the sort has a linear run time => Runtime is O(n*log n)
/*
* Find x so that the sum over std::abs(pA[i]-pB[i]*x) from i=0 to (n-1) is minimal
* Then return x
*/
float linearFit(const float* pA, const float* pB, int n)
{
/*
* Algebraic solution is not possible for the general case
* => iterative algorithm
*/
if (n < 0)
throw "linearFit has invalid argument: expected n >= 0";
if (n == 0)
return 0;//If there is nothing to fit, any factor is a perfect fit (sum is always 0)
if (n == 1)
return pA[0] / pB[0];//return x so that pA[0] = pB[0]*x
//If you don't like this , use a std::vector :P
std::unique_ptr<float[]> targetValues_(new float[n]);
std::unique_ptr<int[]> indices_(new int[n]);
//Get proper pointers:
float* targetValues = targetValues_.get();//The value for x that would cause pA[i] = pB[i]*x
int* indices = indices_.get(); //Indices of useful (not nan and not infinity) target values
//The code above guarantees n > 1, so it is safe to get these pointers:
int m = 0;//Number of useful target values
for (int i = 0; i < n; i++)
{
float a = pA[i];
float b = pB[i];
float targetValue = a / b;
targetValues[i] = targetValue;
if (std::isfinite(targetValue))
{
indices[m++] = i;
}
}
if (m <= 0)
return 0;
if (m == 1)
return targetValues[indices[0]];//If there is only one target value, then it has to be the best one.
//sort the indices by target value
std::sort(indices, indices + m, [&](int ia, int ib){
return targetValues[ia] < targetValues[ib];
});
//Start from the extremes and meet at the optimal solution somewhere in the middle:
int l = 0;
int r = m - 1;
// m >= 2 is guaranteed => l > r
float penaltyFactorL = std::abs(pB[indices[l]]);
float penaltyFactorR = std::abs(pB[indices[r]]);
while (l < r)
{
if (l == r - 1 && penaltyFactorL == penaltyFactorR)
{
break;
}
if (penaltyFactorL < penaltyFactorR)
{
l++;
if (l < r)
{
penaltyFactorL += std::abs(pB[indices[l]]);
}
}
else
{
r--;
if (l < r)
{
penaltyFactorR += std::abs(pB[indices[r]]);
}
}
}
//return the best target value
if (l == r)
return targetValues[indices[l]];
else
return (targetValues[indices[l]] + targetValues[indices[r]])*0.5;
}
How do I map numbers, linearly, between a and b to go between c and d.
That is, I want numbers between 2 and 6 to map to numbers between 10 and 20... but I need the generalized case.
My brain is fried.
If your number X falls between A and B, and you would like Y to fall between C and D, you can apply the following linear transform:
Y = (X-A)/(B-A) * (D-C) + C
That should give you what you want, although your question is a little ambiguous, since you could also map the interval in the reverse direction. Just watch out for division by zero and you should be OK.
Divide to get the ratio between the sizes of the two ranges, then subtract the starting value of your inital range, multiply by the ratio and add the starting value of your second range. In other words,
R = (20 - 10) / (6 - 2)
y = (x - 2) * R + 10
This evenly spreads the numbers from the first range in the second range.
It would be nice to have this functionality in the java.lang.Math class, as this is such a widely required function and is available in other languages.
Here is a simple implementation:
final static double EPSILON = 1e-12;
public static double map(double valueCoord1,
double startCoord1, double endCoord1,
double startCoord2, double endCoord2) {
if (Math.abs(endCoord1 - startCoord1) < EPSILON) {
throw new ArithmeticException("/ 0");
}
double offset = startCoord2;
double ratio = (endCoord2 - startCoord2) / (endCoord1 - startCoord1);
return ratio * (valueCoord1 - startCoord1) + offset;
}
I am putting this code here as a reference for future myself and may be it will help someone.
As an aside, this is the same problem as the classic convert celcius to farenheit where you want to map a number range that equates 0 - 100 (C) to 32 - 212 (F).
https://rosettacode.org/wiki/Map_range
[a1, a2] => [b1, b2]
if s in range of [a1, a2]
then t which will be in range of [b1, b2]
t= b1 + ((s- a1) * (b2-b1))/ (a2-a1)
In addition to #PeterAllenWebb answer, if you would like to reverse back the result use the following:
reverseX = (B-A)*(Y-C)/(D-C) + A
Each unit interval on the first range takes up (d-c)/(b-a) "space" on the second range.
Pseudo:
var interval = (d-c)/(b-a)
for n = 0 to (b - a)
print c + n*interval
How you handle the rounding is up to you.
if your range from [a to b] and you want to map it in [c to d] where x is the value you want to map
use this formula (linear mapping)
double R = (d-c)/(b-a)
double y = c+(x*R)+R
return(y)
Where X is the number to map from A-B to C-D, and Y is the result:
Take the linear interpolation formula, lerp(a,b,m)=a+(m*(b-a)), and put C and D in place of a and b to get Y=C+(m*(D-C)). Then, in place of m, put (X-A)/(B-A) to get Y=C+(((X-A)/(B-A))*(D-C)). This is an okay map function, but it can be simplified. Take the (D-C) piece, and put it inside the dividend to get Y=C+(((X-A)*(D-C))/(B-A)). This gives us another piece we can simplify, (X-A)*(D-C), which equates to (X*D)-(X*C)-(A*D)+(A*C). Pop that in, and you get Y=C+(((X*D)-(X*C)-(A*D)+(A*C))/(B-A)). The next thing you need to do is add in the +C bit. To do that, you multiply C by (B-A) to get ((B*C)-(A*C)), and move it into the dividend to get Y=(((X*D)-(X*C)-(A*D)+(A*C)+(B*C)-(A*C))/(B-A)). This is redundant, containing both a +(A*C) and a -(A*C), which cancel each other out. Remove them, and you get a final result of: Y=((X*D)-(X*C)-(A*D)+(B*C))/(B-A)
TL;DR: The standard map function, Y=C+(((X-A)/(B-A))*(D-C)), can be simplified down to Y=((X*D)-(X*C)-(A*D)+(B*C))/(B-A)
int srcMin = 2, srcMax = 6;
int tgtMin = 10, tgtMax = 20;
int nb = srcMax - srcMin;
int range = tgtMax - tgtMin;
float rate = (float) range / (float) nb;
println(srcMin + " > " + tgtMin);
float stepF = tgtMin;
for (int i = 1; i < nb; i++)
{
stepF += rate;
println((srcMin + i) + " > " + (int) (stepF + 0.5) + " (" + stepF + ")");
}
println(srcMax + " > " + tgtMax);
With checks on divide by zero, of course.