Related
Take a look at this link.
I am trying to understand the following source code meant for finding stationary distribution of a matrix:
# Stationary distribution of discrete-time Markov chain
# (uses eigenvectors)
stationary <- function(mat)
{
x = eigen(t(mat))$vectors[,1]
as.double(x/sum(x))
}
I tested the following source code myself:
> rm(list=ls())
>
> P <- matrix(c(0.66, 0.34,
+ 0.66, 0.34), nrow=2, ncol=2, byrow = TRUE)
>
> x <- eigen(t(P))
> x$values
[1] 1 0
$vectors
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 0.8889746 -0.7071068
[2,] 0.4579566 0.7071068
> y <- x$vectors[,1]
> y
[1] 0.8889746 0.4579566
>
looks like the command
y <- x$vectors[,1]
is selecting the 1st column of the matrix.
Why wasn't that simply written like the following?
# Stationary distribution of discrete-time Markov chain
# (uses eigenvectors)
stationary <- function(mat)
{
x = eigen(t(mat))
y = x[,1]
as.double(y/sum(y))
}
What was the reason for introduction of a dollar sign and vector keyword?
Let's test out your proposal:
> P <- matrix(c(0.66, 0.34, 0.66, 0.34), nrow=2, ncol=2, byrow = TRUE)
> x <- eigen(t(P))
> print(x)
eigen() decomposition
$values
[1] 1 0
$vectors
[,1] [,2]
[1,] 0.8889746 -0.7071068
[2,] 0.4579566 0.7071068
> y = x[,1]
This would produce the following error message:
Error in x[, 1] : incorrect number of dimensions
eigen returns a named list, with eigenvalues named values and eigenvectors named vectors. To access this component of the list. we use the dollar sign. Hence, that is why the code x$vectors which extract the matrix.
I am trying to generate n random numbers whose sum is less than 1.
So I can't just run runif(3). But I can condition each iteration on the sum of all values generated up to that point.
The idea is to start an empty vector, v, and set up a loop such that for each iteration, i, a runif() is generated, but before it is accepted as an element of v, i.e. v[i] <- runif(), the test sum(v) < 1 is carried out, and while FALSE the last entry v[i] is finally accepted, BUT if TRUE, that is the sum is greater than 1, v[i] is tossed out of the vector, and the iteration i is repeated.
I am far from implementing this idea, but I would like to resolve it along the lines of something similar to what follows. It's not so much a practical problem, but more of an exercise to understand the syntax of loops in general:
n <- 4
v <- 0
for (i in 1:n){
rdom <- runif(1)
if((sum(v) + rdom) < 1) v[i] <- rdom
}
# keep trying before moving on to iteration i + 1???? i <- stays i?????
}
I have looked into while (actually I incorporated the while function in the title); however, I need the vector to have n elements, so I get stuck if I try something that basically tells R to add random uniform realizations as elements of the vector v while sum(v) < 1, because I can end up with less than n elements in v.
Here's a possible solution. It doesn't use while but the more generic repeat. I edited it to use a while and save a couple of lines.
set.seed(0)
n <- 4
v <- numeric(n)
i <- 0
while (i < n) {
ith <- runif(1)
if (sum(c(v, ith)) < 1) {
i <- i+1
v[i] <- ith
}
}
v
# [1] 0.89669720 0.06178627 0.01339033 0.02333120
Using a repeat block, you must check for the condition anyways, but, removing the growing problem, it would look very similar:
set.seed(0)
n <- 4
v <- numeric(n)
i <- 0
repeat {
ith <- runif(1)
if (sum(c(v, ith)) < 1) {
i <- i+1
v[i] <- ith
}
if (i == 4) break
}
If you really want to keep exactly the same procedure that you have posted (aka iteratively sample the n values one at a time from the standard uniform distribution, rejecting any samples that cause your sum to exceed 1), then the following code is mathematically equivalent, shorter, and more efficient:
samp <- function(n) {
v <- rep(0, n)
for (i in 1:n) {
v[i] <- runif(1, 0, 1-sum(v))
}
v
}
Basically, this code uses the mathematical fact that if the sum of the vector is currently sum(v), then sampling from the standard uniform distribution until you get a value no greater than 1-sum(v) is exactly equivalent to sampling in the uniform distribution from 0 to 1-sum(v). The advantage of using the latter approach is that it's much more efficient -- we don't need to keep rejecting samples and trying again, and can instead just sample once for each element.
To get a sense of the runtime differences, consider sampling 100 observations with n=10, comparing to a working implementation of the code from your post (copied from my other answer to this question):
OP <- function(n) {
v <- rep(0, n)
for (i in 1:n){
rdom <- runif(1)
while (sum(v) + rdom > 1) rdom <- runif(1)
v[i] <- rdom
}
v
}
set.seed(144)
system.time(samples.OP <- replicate(100, OP(10)))
# user system elapsed
# 261.937 1.641 265.805
system.time(samples.josliber <- replicate(100, samp(10)))
# user system elapsed
# 0.004 0.001 0.004
In this case, the new approach is approaching 100,000 times faster.
It sounds like you're trying to uniformly sample from a space of n variables where the following constraints hold:
x_1 + x_2 + ... + x_n <= 1
x_1 >= 0
x_2 >= 0
...
x_n >= 0
The "hit and run" algorithm is the mathematical machinery that enables you to do exactly this. In 2-dimensional space, the algorithm will sample uniformly from the following triangle, with each location in the shaded area being equally likely to be selected:
The algorithm is provided in R through the hitandrun package, which requires you to specify the linear inequalities that define the space through a constraint matrix, direction vector, and right-hand side vector:
library(hitandrun)
n <- 3
constr <- list(constr = rbind(rep(1, n), -diag(n)),
dir = c(rep("<=", n+1)),
rhs = c(1, rep(0, n)))
set.seed(144)
samples <- hitandrun(constr, n.samples=1000)
head(samples, 10)
# [,1] [,2] [,3]
# [1,] 0.28914690 0.01620488 0.42663224
# [2,] 0.65489979 0.28455231 0.00199671
# [3,] 0.23215115 0.00661661 0.63597912
# [4,] 0.29644234 0.06398131 0.60707269
# [5,] 0.58335047 0.13891392 0.06151205
# [6,] 0.09442808 0.30287832 0.55118290
# [7,] 0.51462261 0.44094683 0.02641638
# [8,] 0.38847794 0.15501252 0.31572793
# [9,] 0.52155055 0.09921046 0.13304728
# [10,] 0.70503030 0.03770875 0.14299089
Breaking down this code a bit, we generated the following constraint matrix:
constr
# $constr
# [,1] [,2] [,3]
# [1,] 1 1 1
# [2,] -1 0 0
# [3,] 0 -1 0
# [4,] 0 0 -1
#
# $dir
# [1] "<=" "<=" "<=" "<="
#
# $rhs
# [1] 1 0 0 0
Reading across the first line of constr$constr we have 1, 1, 1 which indicates "1*x1 + 1*x2 + 1*x3". The first element of constr$dir is <=, and the first element of constr$rhs is 1; putting it together we have x1 + x2 + x3 <= 1. From the second row of constr$constr we read -1, 0, 0 which indicates "-1*x1 + 0*x2 + 0*x3". The second element of constr$dir is <= and the second element of constr$rhs is 0; putting it together we have -x1 <= 0 which is the same as saying x1 >= 0. The similar non-negativity constraints follow in the remaining rows.
Note that the hit and run algorithm has the nice property of having the exact same distribution for each of the variables:
hist(samples[,1])
hist(samples[,2])
hist(samples[,3])
Meanwhile, the distribution of the samples from your procedure will be highly uneven, and as n increases this problem will get worse and worse.
OP <- function(n) {
v <- rep(0, n)
for (i in 1:n){
rdom <- runif(1)
while (sum(v) + rdom > 1) rdom <- runif(1)
v[i] <- rdom
}
v
}
samples.OP <- t(replicate(1000, OP(3)))
hist(samples.OP[,1])
hist(samples.OP[,2])
hist(samples.OP[,3])
An added advantage is that the hit-and-run algorithm appears faster -- I generated these 1000 replicates in 0.006 seconds on my computer with hit-and-run and it took 0.3 seconds using the modified code from the OP.
Here's how I would do it, without any loop, if or while:
set.seed(123)
x <- runif(1) # start with the sum that you want to obtain
n <- 4 # number of generated random numbers, can be chosen arbitrarily
y <- sort(runif(n-1,0,x)) # choose n-1 random points to cut the range [0:x]
z <- c(y[1],diff(y),x-y[n-1]) # result: determine the length of the segments
#> z
#[1] 0.11761257 0.10908627 0.02723712 0.03364156
#> sum(z)
#[1] 0.2875775
#> all.equal(sum(z),x)
#[1] TRUE
The advantage here is that you can determine exactly which sum you want to obtain and how many numbers n you want to generate for this. If you set, e.g., x <- 1 in the second line, the n random numbers stored in the vector z will add up to one.
I've been messing around learning functions to calculate homework answers (in this case the present value of money) and I've run into a bit of an issue.
Here's the code:
pv <- function(x,y,z) {
list2 <- 0
ans <- 0
for(t in z){
fv <- x
d <- y
rate <- (1+d)^t
ans[t] <- fv/rate
}
return(ans)
}
To calculate present value I want to apply the function to one value for a range of years (z=1:10, say) and have the value for each year stored in a vector. What I have works, but this strategy breaks down in other applications. For example, when I want to input a vector of values (I have another function where I run the ans vector through a function) for a range of years I have trouble getting back a usable vector.
I had to make a change in your for loop, then I used mapply:
pv <- function(x,y,z) {
list2 <- 0
ans <- 0
for(t in 1:z){ # changed from t in z
fv <- x
d <- y
rate <- (1+d)^t
ans[t] <- fv/rate
}
return(ans)
}
mapply(pv, c(1000, 1200, 1500, 5600), c(.05, .02, .03, .09), 5)
Output:
[,1] [,2] [,3] [,4]
[1,] 952.3810 1176.471 1456.311 5137.615
[2,] 907.0295 1153.403 1413.894 4713.408
[3,] 863.8376 1130.787 1372.712 4324.227
[4,] 822.7025 1108.615 1332.731 3967.181
[5,] 783.5262 1086.877 1293.913 3639.616
Each row contains the present value for each value of x for a period i.e. row 1 is the present value for 1st period. If you wanted just the 5th period for all values in question:
mapply(pv, c(1000, 1200, 1500, 5600), c(.05, .02, .03, .09), 5)[5,]
pv = function(fv, d, t)
fv/(1+d)^t
pv(1.05^2, 0.05, c(1, 2))
Here's an explanation. Basically, in R, algebraic functions are applied automatically over numeric data, such that looping is often unnecessary.
I am attempting to maximize a likelihood for a Matrix parameter of dimension 2x2. The Likelihood function needs to pass in a couple of fixed matrix parameters that the likelihood is also a function of. The data, denoted Y, and a covariance matrix, Sigma.star (which I am passing through as a lower triangular matrix), are necessary for the calculation but I would like to keep those fixed and run an optim function over this, in my code trying to optimize A
My issue is that optim seems to be erring from the fact it's optimizing something inside of an object I'm using for matrix algebra. Is there some way to make it work without programming every little calculation out?
The specific error is:
Error in diag(1, nrow = (m^2)) - A %x% A : non-conformable arrays
But A kronecker A should be an m^2 x m^2 matrix just like the identity…
Code:
library(MCMCpack)
library(mvtnorm)
set.seed(1000)
Likelihood.orig<-function(A, Y, Sigma.star){
Sigma<-xpnd(Sigma.star)
n<-nrow(Y)
if(is.vector(A)==TRUE){
A<-as.matrix(A, nrow=nrow(Sigma), ncol=ncol(Sigma))
}
m<-nrow(A)
V<-matrix(solve(diag(1, nrow=(m^2))-A%x%A)%*%as.vector(Sigma), nrow=m, ncol=m)
temp1<- (-.5)*log(abs(det(V)))
temp2<- (-(n-1)/2)*log(abs(det(Sigma)))
temp3<- t(Y[,1, drop=FALSE]) %*% (solve(V)) %*% Y[,1, drop=FALSE]
terms<- numeric(n-1)
for(i in 2:n){
terms[i-1]<- t(Y[,i, drop=FALSE] - A %*%Y[,i-1, drop=FALSE]) %*% (solve(Sigma)) %*% (Y[,i] - A %*%Y[,i-1])
}
return(temp1+temp2-.5*(temp3+sum(terms)))
}
Generate.Y<-function(n, A, Sigma){
m<-nrow(A)
Y<-matrix(0, nrow=m, ncol=n)
V<-matrix(solve(diag(1, nrow=m^2)-A%x%A)%*%as.vector(Sigma), nrow=m, ncol=m)
Y[,1]<-rmvnorm(1, numeric(nrow(A)), V)
for(i in 2:n){
Y[,i]<-A%*%Y[,i-1, drop=FALSE]+t(rmvnorm(1, mean = numeric(m), sigma = Sigma))
}
return(Y)
}
n<-500
A.true<-matrix(c(.8, .3, 0, .5), nrow=2, ncol=2)
Sigma<-matrix(c(1, 0, 0, .5), nrow=2, ncol=2)
Y<-matrix(0, nrow=2, ncol=n)
Y<-Generate.Y(n, A.true, Sigma)
m=nrow(Y)
lower.Sigma<-vech(Sigma)
optim(par=c(1, 0, 0, 1), fn=Likelihood.orig, method="Nelder-Mead",
control=list(maxit=500, fnscale=-1), Sigma.star=lower.Sigma, Y=Y)
Your approach is correct, i.e., make optim optimize over a vector, and only turn that vector into a matrix inside the function you are trying to maximize.
However, you need to use matrix and not as.matrix to create that matrix. See the difference between:
as.matrix(1:4, nrow=2, ncol=2) # wrong tool
# [,1]
# [1,] 1
# [2,] 2
# [3,] 3
# [4,] 4
and
matrix(1:4, nrow=2, ncol=2)
# [,1] [,2]
# [1,] 1 3
# [2,] 2 4
For problems of this type, I would highly recommend you learn the R debugging tools (browser, debug, debugonce, etc.). See General suggestions for debugging in R for examples.
I tried norm, but I think it gives the wrong result. (the norm of c(1, 2, 3) is sqrt(1*1+2*2+3*3), but it returns 6..
x1 <- 1:3
norm(x1)
# Error in norm(x1) : 'A' must be a numeric matrix
norm(as.matrix(x1))
# [1] 6
as.matrix(x1)
# [,1]
# [1,] 1
# [2,] 2
# [3,] 3
norm(as.matrix(x1))
# [1] 6
Does anyone know what's the function to calculate the norm of a vector in R?
norm(c(1,1), type="2") # 1.414214
norm(c(1, 1, 1), type="2") # 1.732051
This is a trivial function to write yourself:
norm_vec <- function(x) sqrt(sum(x^2))
I was surprised that nobody had tried profiling the results for the above suggested methods, so I did that. I've used a random uniform function to generate a list and used that for repetition (Just a simple back of the envelop type of benchmark):
> uut <- lapply(1:100000, function(x) {runif(1000, min=-10^10, max=10^10)})
> norm_vec <- function(x) sqrt(sum(x^2))
> norm_vec2 <- function(x){sqrt(crossprod(x))}
>
> system.time(lapply(uut, norm_vec))
user system elapsed
0.58 0.00 0.58
> system.time(lapply(uut, norm_vec2))
user system elapsed
0.35 0.00 0.34
> system.time(lapply(uut, norm, type="2"))
user system elapsed
6.75 0.00 6.78
> system.time(lapply(lapply(uut, as.matrix), norm))
user system elapsed
2.70 0.00 2.73
It seems that taking the power and then sqrt manually is faster than the builtin norm for real values vectors at least. This is probably because norm internally does an SVD:
> norm
function (x, type = c("O", "I", "F", "M", "2"))
{
if (identical("2", type)) {
svd(x, nu = 0L, nv = 0L)$d[1L]
}
else .Internal(La_dlange(x, type))
}
and the SVD function internally converts the vector into a matrix, and does more complicated stuff:
> svd
function (x, nu = min(n, p), nv = min(n, p), LINPACK = FALSE)
{
x <- as.matrix(x)
...
EDIT (20 Oct 2019):
There have been some comments to point out the correctness issue which the above test case doesn't bring out:
> norm_vec(c(10^155))
[1] Inf
> norm(c(10^155), type="2")
[1] 1e+155
This happens because large numbers are considered as infinity in R:
> 10^309
[1] Inf
So, it looks like:
It seems that taking the power and then sqrt manually is faster than the builtin norm for real values vectors for small numbers.
How small? So that the sum of squares doesn't overflow.
norm(x, type = c("O", "I", "F", "M", "2"))
The default is "O".
"O", "o" or "1" specifies the one norm, (maximum absolute column sum);
"F" or "f" specifies the Frobenius norm (the Euclidean norm of x treated as if it were a vector);
norm(as.matrix(x1),"o")
The result is 6, same as norm(as.matrix(x1))
norm(as.matrix(x1),"f")
The result is sqrt(1*1+2*2+3*3)
So, norm(as.matrix(x1),"f") is answer.
We can also find the norm as :
Result<-sum(abs(x)^2)^(1/2)
OR Even You can also try as:
Result<-sqrt(t(x)%*%x)
Both will give the same answer
I'mma throw this out there too as an equivalent R expression
norm_vec(x) <- function(x){sqrt(crossprod(x))}
Don't confuse R's crossprod with a similarly named vector/cross product. That naming is known to cause confusion especially for those with a physics/mechanics background.
Answer for Euclidean length of a vector (k-norm) with scaling to avoid destructive underflow and overflow is
norm <- function(x, k) { max(abs(x))*(sum((abs(x)/max(abs(x)))^k))^(1/k) }
See below for explanation.
1. Euclidean length of a vector with no scaling:
norm() is a vector-valued function which computes the length of the vector. It takes two arguments such as the vector x of class matrix and the type of norm k of class integer.
norm <- function(x, k) {
# x = matrix with column vector and with dimensions mx1 or mxn
# k = type of norm with integer from 1 to +Inf
stopifnot(k >= 1) # check for the integer value of k greater than 0
stopifnot(length(k) == 1) # check for length of k to be 1. The variable k is not vectorized.
if(k == Inf) {
# infinity norm
return(apply(x, 2, function(vec) max(abs(vec)) ))
} else {
# k-norm
return(apply(x, 2, function(vec) (sum((abs(vec))^k))^(1/k) ))
}
}
x <- matrix(c(1,-2,3,-4)) # column matrix
sapply(c(1:4, Inf), function(k) norm(x = x, k = k))
# [1] 10.000000 5.477226 4.641589 4.337613 4.000000
1-norm (10.0) converges to infinity-norm (4.0).
k-norm is also called as "Euclidean norm in Euclidean n-dimensional space".
Note:
In the norm() function definition, for vectors with real components, the absolute values can be dropped in norm-2k or even indexed norms, where k >= 1.
If you are confused with the norm function definition, you can read each one individually as given below.
norm_1 <- function(x) sum(abs(x))
norm_2 <- function(x) (sum((abs(x))^2))^(1/2)
norm_3 <- function(x) (sum((abs(x))^3))^(1/3)
norm_4 <- function(x) (sum((abs(x))^4))^(1/4)
norm_k <- function(x) (sum((abs(x))^k))^(1/k)
norm_inf <- max(abs(x))
2. Euclidean length of a vector with scaling to avoid destructive overflow and underflow issues:
Note-2:
The only problem with this solution norm() is that it does not guard against overflow or underflow problems as alluded here and here.
Fortunately, someone had already solved this problem for 2-norm (euclidean length) in the blas (basic linear algebra subroutines) fortran library. A description of this problem can be found in the textbook of "Numerical Methods and Software by Kahaner, Moler and Nash" - Chapter-1, Section 1.3, page - 7-9.
The name of the fortran subroutine is dnrm2.f, which handles destructive overflow and underflow issues in the norm() by scaling with the maximum of the vector components. The destructive overflow and underflow problem arise due to radical operation in the norm() function.
I will show how to implement dnrm2.f in R below.
#1. find the maximum among components of vector-x
max_x <- max(x)
#2. scale or divide the components of vector by max_x
scaled_x <- x/max_x
#3. take square of the scaled vector-x
sq_scaled_x <- (scaled_x)^2
#4. sum the square of scaled vector-x
sum_sq_scaled_x <- sum(sq_scaled_x)
#5. take square root of sum_sq_scaled_x
rt_sum_sq_scaled_x <- sqrt(sum_sq_scaled_x)
#6. multiply the maximum of vector x with rt_sum_sq_scaled_x
max_x*rt_sum_sq_scaled_x
one-liner of the above 6-steps of dnrm2.f in R is:
# Euclidean length of vector - 2norm
max(x)*sqrt(sum((x/max(x))^2))
Lets try example vectors to compute 2-norm (see other solutions in this thread) for this problem.
x = c(-8e+299, -6e+299, 5e+299, -8e+298, -5e+299)
max(x)*sqrt(sum((x/max(x))^2))
# [1] 1.227355e+300
x <- (c(1,-2,3,-4))
max(x)*sqrt(sum((x/max(x))^2))
# [1] 5.477226
Therefore, the recommended way to implement a generalized solution for k-norm in R is that single line, which guard against the destructive overflow or underflow problems. To improve this one-liner, you can use a combination of norm() without scaling for a vector containing not-too-small or not-too-large components and knorm() with scaling for a vector with too-small or too-large components. Implementing scaling for all vectors results in too many calculations. I did not implement this improvement in knorm() given below.
# one-liner for k-norm - generalized form for all norms including infinity-norm:
max(abs(x))*(sum((abs(x)/max(abs(x)))^k))^(1/k)
# knorm() function using the above one-liner.
knorm <- function(x, k) {
# x = matrix with column vector and with dimensions mx1 or mxn
# k = type of norm with integer from 1 to +Inf
stopifnot(k >= 1) # check for the integer value of k greater than 0
stopifnot(length(k) == 1) # check for length of k to be 1. The variable k is not vectorized.
# covert elements of matrix to its absolute values
x <- abs(x)
if(k == Inf) { # infinity-norm
return(apply(x, 2, function(vec) max(vec)))
} else { # k-norm
return(apply(x, 2, function(vec) {
max_vec <- max(vec)
return(max_vec*(sum((vec/max_vec)^k))^(1/k))
}))
}
}
# 2-norm
x <- matrix(c(-8e+299, -6e+299, 5e+299, -8e+298, -5e+299))
sapply(2, function(k) knorm(x = x, k = k))
# [1] 1.227355e+300
# 1-norm, 2-norm, 3-norm, 4-norm, and infinity-norm
sapply(c(1:4, Inf), function(k) knorm(x = x, k = k))
# [1] 2.480000e+300 1.227355e+300 9.927854e+299 9.027789e+299 8.000000e+299
x <- matrix(c(1,-2,3,-4))
sapply(c(1:4, Inf), function(k) knorm(x = x, k = k))
# [1] 10.000000 5.477226 4.641589 4.337613 4.000000
x <- matrix(c(1,-2,3,-4, 0, -8e+299, -6e+299, 5e+299, -8e+298, -5e+299), nc = 2)
sapply(c(1:4, Inf), function(k) knorm(x = x, k = k))
# [,1] [,2] [,3] [,4] [,5]
# [1,] 1.00e+01 5.477226e+00 4.641589e+00 4.337613e+00 4e+00
# [2,] 2.48e+300 1.227355e+300 9.927854e+299 9.027789e+299 8e+299
If you have a data.frame or a data.table 'DT', and want to compute the Euclidian norm (norm 2) across each row, the apply function can be used.
apply(X = DT, MARGIN = 1, FUN = norm, '2')
Example:
>DT
accx accy accz
1: 9.576807 -0.1629486 -0.2587167
2: 9.576807 -0.1722938 -0.2681506
3: 9.576807 -0.1634264 -0.2681506
4: 9.576807 -0.1545590 -0.2681506
5: 9.576807 -0.1621254 -0.2681506
6: 9.576807 -0.1723825 -0.2682434
7: 9.576807 -0.1723825 -0.2728810
8: 9.576807 -0.1723825 -0.2775187
> apply(X = DT, MARGIN = 1, FUN = norm, '2')
[1] 9.581687 9.582109 9.581954 9.581807 9.581932 9.582114 9.582245 9.582378
Following AbdealiJK's answer,
I experimented further to gain some insight.
Here's one.
x = c(-8e+299, -6e+299, 5e+299, -8e+298, -5e+299)
sqrt(sum(x^2))
norm(x, type='2')
The first result is Inf and the second one is 1.227355e+300 which is quite correct as I show you in the code below.
library(Rmpfr)
y <- mpfr(x, 120)
sqrt(sum(y*y))
The result is 1227354879.... I didn't count the number of trailing numbers but it looks all right. I know there another way around this OVERFLOW problem which is first applying log function to all numbers and summing up, which I do not have time to implement!
Create your matrix as column vise using cbind then the norm function works well with Frobenius norm (the Euclidean norm) as an argument.
x1<-cbind(1:3)
norm(x1,"f")
[1] 3.741657
sqrt(1*1+2*2+3*3)
[1] 3.741657