J = 0.05;
B = 0.02;
Tload[t_] := 0.0;
R1 = 2;
\[Alpha] = 30*\[Pi]/180;
d = 0.05;
g = 0.001;
Nturns = 200;
\[Mu]0 = 4*\[Pi]*10^(-7);
r = 0.03;
lm = 0.02;
d = 0.1;
W = Sqrt[2*r^2 - 2*r^2*Cos[2*a]];
Rgmax = g/(\[Mu]0*r*d);
Rm = lm/(\[Mu]0*W*d);
square[x_, x1_, x2_] := UnitStep[x - x1]*(1 - UnitStep[x - x2])
Rg[\[Theta]_] :=
Rgmax/((2 \[Alpha] - Mod[\[Theta][t], \[Pi]])*
square[Mod[\[Theta][t], \[Pi]], -2 \[Alpha],
2 \[Alpha]] + (2 \[Alpha] - Mod[-\[Theta][t], \[Pi]])*
square[Mod[-\[Theta][t], \[Pi]], -2 \[Alpha], 2 \[Alpha]])
L[\[Theta]_] :=
Nturns^2/(
2*Rg[\[Theta]] +
Rm) *(square[Mod[\[Theta][t], \[Pi]], -2 \[Alpha], 2 \[Alpha]] +
square[Mod[-\[Theta][t], \[Pi]], -2 \[Alpha], 2 \[Alpha]])
Plot[L[\[Theta]], {\[Theta][t], -8 \[Alpha], 8 \[Alpha]},
PlotRange -> All]
I'm sorry but I could not paste as mathematica can show (newbie here). However, I tried several solutions to get rid of 1/0 inf expression of L[theta] but I didn't get it.
Please, copy and paste it to a notebook and run it.
I multiply L[theta] with my square function to make undefined areas equal to zero(f.e 2a, Pi-2a should be zero as other intervals) but it did not work.
How can I identify this function properly?
Thanks in advance.
This?
J=0.05; B=0.02; Tload[t_]:=0.0; R1=2; \[Alpha]=30*\[Pi]/180; d=0.05;
g=0.001; Nturns=200; \[Mu]0=4*\[Pi]*10^-7; r=0.03; lm=0.02; d=0.1;
W=Sqrt[2*r^2-2*r^2*Cos[2*\[Alpha]]]; Rgmax=g/(\[Mu]0*r*d); Rm=lm/(\[Mu]0*W*d);
square[x_, x1_, x2_]:=UnitStep[x-x1]*(1-UnitStep[x-x2]);
Rg[\[Theta]_]:=Rgmax/((2 \[Alpha]-Mod[\[Theta],\[Pi]])*square[Mod[\[Theta],
\[Pi]],-2 \[Alpha], 2 \[Alpha]] +(2 \[Alpha]-Mod[-\[Theta],\[Pi]])*
square[Mod[-\[Theta],\[Pi]],-2 \[Alpha], 2 \[Alpha]]);
L[\[Theta]_] := Nturns^2/(2*Rg[\[Theta]]+Rm)*(square[Mod[\[Theta],\[Pi]],
-2 \[Alpha],2 \[Alpha]]+square[Mod[-\[Theta],\[Pi]],-2 \[Alpha], 2 \[Alpha]]);
Plot[L[\[Theta]], {\[Theta],-8 \[Alpha],8 \[Alpha]}, PlotRange->All, PlotPoints->200]
All I did was fix your a versus Alpha and your Theta[t] versus Theta confusion.
Theta is a variable and Theta[t] is a function. There is a complicated explanation of this, but those are not necessarily the same thing and may mean very different things to Mathematica. The further you stray from the very conventional way of doing things in Mathematica the more confusing holes you can fall into with no way of understanding why it isn't doing what you expect it to.
Related
I am new to Linear Algebra and learning about triangular systems implemented in Julia lang. I have a col_bs() function I will show here that I need to do a mathematical flop count of. It doesn't have to be super technical this is for learning purposes. I tried to break the function down into it's inner i loop and outer j loop. In between is a count of each FLOP , which I assume is useless since the constants are usually dropped anyway.
I also know the answer should be N^2 since its a reversed version of the forward substitution algorithm which is N^2 flops. I tried my best to derive this N^2 count but when I tried I ended up with a weird Nj count. I will try to provide all work I have done! Thank you to anyone who helps.
function col_bs(U, b)
n = length(b)
x = copy(b)
for j = n:-1:2
if U[j,j] == 0
error("Error: Matrix U is singular.")
end
x[j] = x[j]/U[j,j]
for i=1:j-1
x[i] = x[i] - x[j] * U[i , j ]
end
end
x[1] = x[1]/U[1,1]
return x
end
1: To start 2 flops for the addition and multiplication x[i] - x[j] * U[i , j ]
The $i$ loop does: $$ \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2$$
2: 1 flop for the division $$ x[j] / = U[j,j] $$
3: Inside the for $j$ loop in total does: $$ 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2$$
4:The $j$ loop itself does:$$\sum_{j=2}^n ( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2)) $$
5: Then one final flop for $$ x[1] = x[1]/U[1,1].$$
6: Finally we have
$$\\ 1 + (\sum_{j=2}^n ( 1 + \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2))) .$$
Which we can now break down.
If we distribute and simplify
$$\\ 1 + (\sum_{j=2}^n + \sum_{j=2}^n \sum_{i=1}^{j-1} 2) .$$
We can look at only the significant variables and ignore constants,
$$\\
\\ 1 + (n + n(j-1))
\\ n + nj - n
\\ nj
$$
Which then means that if we ignore constants the highest possibility of flops for this formula would be $n$ ( which may be a hint to whats wrong with my function since it should be $n^2$ just like the rest of our triangular systems I believe)
Reduce your code to this form:
for j = n:-1:2
...
for i = 1:j-1
... do k FLOPs
end
end
The inner loop takes k*(j-1) flops. The cost of the outer loop is thus
Since you know that j <= n, you know that this sum is less than (n-1)^2 which is enough for big O.
In fact, however, you should also be able to figure out that
I'm trying to translate a C routine from an old sound synthesis program into R, but have indexing issues which I'm struggling to understand (I'm a beginner when it comes to using loops).
The routine creates an exponential lookup table - the vector exptab:
# Define parameters
sinetabsize <- 8192
prop <- 0.8
BP <- 10
BD <- -5
BA <- -1
# Create output vector
exptab <- vector("double", sinetabsize)
# Loop
while(abs(BD) > 0.00001){
BY = (exp(BP) -1) / (exp(BP*prop)-1)
if (BY > 2){
BS = -1
}
else{
BS = 1
}
if (BA != BS){
BD = BD * -0.5
BA = BS
BP = BP + BD
}
if (BP <= 0){
BP = 0.001
}
BQ = 1 / (exp(BP) - 1)
incr = 1 / sinetabsize
x = 0
stabsize = sinetabsize + 1
for (i in (1:(stabsize-1))){
x = x + incr
exptab [[sinetabsize-i]] = 1 - (BQ * (exp(BP * x) - 1))
}
}
Running the code gives the error:
Error in exptab[[sinetabsize - i]] <- 1 - (BQ * (exp(BP * x) - 1)) :
attempt to select less than one element in integerOneIndex
Which, I understand from looking at other posts, indicates an indexing problem. But, I'm finding it difficult to work out the exact issue.
I suspect the error may lie in my translation. The original C code for the last few lines is:
for (i=1; i < stabsize;i++){
x += incr;
exptab[sinetabsize-i] = 1.0 - (float) (BQ*(exp(BP*x) - 1.0));
}
I had thought the R code for (i in (1:(stabsize-1))) was equivalent to the C code for (i=1; i< stabsize;i++) (i.e. the initial value of i is i = 1, the test is whether i < stabsize, and the increment is +1). But now I'm not so sure.
Any suggestions as to where I'm going wrong would be greatly appreciated!
As you say, array indexing in R starts at 1. In C it starts at zero. I reckon that's your problem. Can sinetabsize-i ever get to zero?
This may be quite a basic question for someone who knows linear programming.
In most of the problems that I saw on LP has somewhat similar to following format
max 3x+4y
subject to 4x-5y = -34
3x-5y = 10 (and similar other constraints)
So in other words, we have same number of unknown in objective and constraint functions.
My problem is that I have one unknown variable in objective function and 3 unknowns in constraint functions.
The problem is like this
Objective function: min w1
subject to:
w1 + 0.1676x + 0.1692y >= 0.1666
w1 - 0.1676x - 0.1692y >= -0.1666
w1 + 0.3039x + 0.3058y >= 0.3
w1 - 0.3039x - 0.3058y >= -0.3
x + y = 1
x >= 0
y >= 0
As can be seen, the objective function has only one unknown i.e. w1 and constraint functions have 3 (or lets say 2) unknown i.e w1, x and y.
Can somebody please guide me how to solve this problem, especially using R or MATLAB linear programming toolbox.
Your objective only involves w1 but you can still view it as a function of w1,x,y, where the coefficient of w1 is 1, and the coeffs of x,y are zero:
min w1*1 + x*0 + y*0
Once you see this you can formulate it in the usual way as a "standard" LP.
Prasad is correct. The number of unknowns in the objective function does not matter. You can view unknowns that are not present as having a zero coefficient.
This LP is easily solved using Matlab's linprog function. For more
details on linprog see the documentation here.
% We lay out the variables as X = [w1; x; y]
c = [1; 0; 0]; % The objective is w1 = c'*X
% Construct the constraint matrix
% Inequality constraints will be written as Ain*X <= bin
% w1 x y
Ain = [ -1 -0.1676 -0.1692;
-1 0.1676 0.1692;
-1 -0.3039 -0.3058;
-1 0.3039 0.3058;
];
bin = [ -0.166; 0.166; -0.3; 0.3];
% Construct equality constraints Aeq*X == beq
Aeq = [ 0 1 1];
beq = 1;
%Construct lower and upper bounds l <= X <= u
l = [ -inf; 0; 0];
u = inf(3,1);
% Solve the LP using linprog
[X, optval] = linprog(c,Ain,bin,Aeq,beq,l,u);
% Extract the solution
w1 = X(1);
x = X(2);
y = X(3);
I have this recursive function:
f(n) = 2 * f(n-1) + 3 * f(n-2) + 4
f(1) = 2
f(2) = 8
I know from experience that explicit form of it would be:
f(n) = 3 ^ n - 1 // pow(3, n) - 1
I wanna know if there's any way to prove that. I googled a bit, yet didn't find anything simple to understand. I already know that generation functions probably solve it, they're too complex, I'd rather not get into them. I'm looking for a simpler way.
P.S.
If it helps I remember something like this solved it:
f(n) = 2 * f(n-1) + 3 * f(n-2) + 4
// consider f(n) = x ^ n
x ^ n = 2 * x ^ (n-1) + 3 * x ^ (n-2) + 4
And then you somehow computed x that lead to explicit form of the recursive formula, yet I can't quite remember
f(n) = 2 * f(n-1) + 3 * f(n-2) + 4
f(n+1) = 2 * f(n) + 3 * f(n-1) + 4
f(n+1)-f(n) = 2 * f(n) - 2 * f(n-1) + 3 * f(n-1) - 3 * f(n-2)
f(n+1) = 3 * f(n) + f(n-1) - 3 * f(n-2)
Now the 4 is gone.
As you said the next step is letting f(n) = x ^ n
x^(n+1) = 3 * x^n + x^(n-1) - 3 * x^(n-2)
divide by x^(n-2)
x^3 = 3 * x^2 + x - 3
x^3 - 3 * x^2 - x + 3 = 0
factorise to find x
(x-3)(x-1)(x+1) = 0
x = -1 or 1 or 3
f(n) = A * (-1)^n + B * 1^n + C * 3^n
f(n) = A * (-1)^n + B + C * 3^n
Now find A,B and C using the values you have
f(1) = 2; f(2) = 8; f(3) = 26
f(1) = 2 = -A + B + 3C
f(2) = 8 = A + B + 9C
f(3) = 26 = -A + B + 27C
solving for A,B and C:
f(3)-f(1) = 24 = 24C => C = 1
f(2)-f(1) = 6 = 2A + 6 => A = 0
2 = B + 3 => B = -1
Finally
f(n) = 3^n - 1
Ok, I know you didn't want generating functions (GF from now on) and all the complicated stuff, but my problem turned out to be nonlinear and simple linear methods didn't seem to work. So after a full day of searching, I found the answer and hopefully these findings will be of help to others.
My problem: a[n+1]= a[n]/(1+a[n]) (i.e. not linear (nor polynomial), but also not completely nonlinear - it is a rational difference equation)
if your recurrence is linear (or polynomial), wikihow has step-by-step instructions (with and without GF)
if you want to read something about GF, go to this wiki, but I didn't get it till I started doing examples (see next)
GF usage example on Fibonacci
if the previous example didn't make sense, download GF book and read the simplest GF example (section 1.1, ie a[n+1]= 2 a[n]+1, then 1.2, a[n+1]= 2 a[n]+1, then 1.3 - Fibonacci)
(while I'm on the book topic) templatetypedef mentioned Concrete Mathematics, download here, but I don't know much about it except it has a recurrence, sums, and GF chapter (among others) and a table of simple GFs on page 335
as I dove deeper for nonlinear stuff, I saw this page, using which I failed at z-transforms approach and didn't try linear algebra, but the link to rational difference eqn was the best (see next step)
so as per this page, rational functions are nice because you can transform them into polynomials and use linear methods of step 1. 3. and 4. above, which I wrote out by hand and probably made some mistake, because (see 8)
Mathematica (or even the free WolframAlpha) has a recurrence solver, which with RSolve[{a[n + 1] == a[n]/(1 + a[n]), a[1] == A}, a[n], n] got me a simple {{a[n] -> A/(1 - A + A n)}}. So I guess I'll go back and look for mistake in hand-calculations (they are good for understanding how the whole conversion process works).
Anyways, hope this helps.
In general, there is no algorithm for converting a recursive form into an iterative one. This problem is undecidable. As an example, consider this recursive function definition, which defines the Collatz sequence:
f(1) = 0
f(2n) = 1 + f(n)
f(2n + 1) = 1 + f(6n + 4)
It's not known whether or not this is even a well-defined function or not. Were an algorithm to exist that could convert this into a closed-form, we could decide whether or not it was well-defined.
However, for many common cases, it is possible to convert a recursive definition into an iterative one. The excellent textbook Concrete Mathematics spends much of its pages showing how to do this. One common technique that works quite well when you have a guess of what the answer is is to use induction. As an example for your case, suppose that you believe that your recursive definition does indeed give 3^n - 1. To prove this, try proving that it holds true for the base cases, then show that this knowledge lets you generalize the solution upward. You didn't put a base case in your post, but I'm assuming that
f(0) = 0
f(1) = 2
Given this, let's see whether your hunch is correct. For the specific inputs of 0 and 1, you can verify by inspection that the function does compute 3^n - 1. For the inductive step, let's assume that for all n' < n that f(n) = 3^n - 1. Then we have that
f(n) = 2f(n - 1) + 3f(n - 2) + 4
= 2 * (3^{n-1} - 1) + 3 * (3^{n-2} - 1) + 4
= 2 * 3^{n-1} - 2 + 3^{n-1} - 3 + 4
= 3 * 3^{n-1} - 5 + 4
= 3^n - 1
So we have just proven that this recursive function does indeed produce 3^n - 1.
I am looking for a solution:
A= {0,1,2,3,4};
F(x) = 3x - 1 (mod5)
Could you help me to find the inverse. I am struggling with this as it seems to be not to be onto or 1to1.
Thank you for your help.
x = 2y + 2, where y = F(x)
-> 3x - 1 = 3(2y+2) - 1 = 6y + 5 = y (mod 5)
edit: if you want this to be evaluated for the list of principal values mod 5 [0,1,2,3,4], just evaluate 2y+2 for each of these, and what you get is [2,4,1,3,0]. Which, if you plug back into 3x-1, you get [0,1,2,3,4] as expected.