I don't like the way Gadfly chooses axis limits when plotting, for example one of the plots I produced only had data in the center quarter of the canvas. A MWE could be:
plot(x=[2.9,8.01],y=[-0.01,0.81])
Gadfly then picks an x-axis range of [0,10] and [-0.5,1] for the y-axis, which both seem far too wide for me. The values here are obviously made up, but are basically the bounding box of my real data.
I'd much prefer not to have all that blank space, something like R's default 4% mode (i.e. par(xaxs='r',yaxs='r')). I can get something similar in Gadfly by doing:
plot(x=[2.9,8.01],y=[-0.01,0.81]
Guide.xticks(ticks=[3:8]),
Guide.yticks(ticks=[0:0.2:0.8]))
i.e.
Does something like this already exist in Gadfly? Given that I struggled to find Guide.[xy]ticks I'm expecting that I'll need to write some code for this…
Pointers appreciated!
As a work around, I've got an altered version of Heckbert's 1990's Graphics Gems code working to generate ticks within a given min/max. It looks like this in (my naïve) Julia:
# find a "nice" number approximately equal to x.
# round the number if round=true, take the ceiling if round=false
function nicenum{T<:FloatingPoint}(x::T, round::Bool)
ex::T = 10^floor(log10(x))
f::T = x/ex
convert(T, if round
if f < 1.5; 1.
elseif f < 3.; 2.
elseif f < 7.; 5.
else; 10.
end
else
if f <= 1.; 1.
elseif f <= 2.; 2.
elseif f <= 5.; 5.
else; 10.
end
end)*ex
end
function pretty_inner{T<:FloatingPoint}(min::T, max::T, ntick::Int)
if max < min
error("min must be less than max")
end
if min == max
return min:one(T):min
end
delta = nicenum((max-min)/(ntick-1),false)
gmin = ceil(min/delta)*delta
gmax = floor(max/delta)*delta
# shift max a bit in case of rounding errors
gmin:delta:(gmax+delta*eps(T))
end
and can be used as:
plot(x=[2.9,8.01],y=[-0.01,0.81],
Guide.xticks(ticks=[pretty_inner(2.9,8.01,7)]),
Guide.yticks(ticks=[pretty_inner(-0.01,0.81,7)]))
and will give the same result as I got from R.
It would be great if the ranges could be pulled out automatically, but I can't see how to do that within the existing Gadfly code.
Related
Background
I read here that newton method fails on function x^(1/3) when it's inital step is 1. I am tring to test it in julia jupyter notebook.
I want to print a plot of function x^(1/3)
then I want to run code
f = x->x^(1/3)
D(f) = x->ForwardDiff.derivative(f, float(x))
x = find_zero((f, D(f)),1, Roots.Newton(),verbose=true)
Problem:
How to print chart of function x^(1/3) in range eg.(-1,1)
I tried
f = x->x^(1/3)
plot(f,-1,1)
I got
I changed code to
f = x->(x+0im)^(1/3)
plot(f,-1,1)
I got
I want my plot to look like a plot of x^(1/3) in google
However I can not print more than a half of it
That's because x^(1/3) does not always return a real (as in numbers) result or the real cube root of x. For negative numbers, the exponentiation function with some powers like (1/3 or 1.254 and I suppose all non-integers) will return a Complex. For type-stability requirements in Julia, this operation applied to a negative Real gives a DomainError. This behavior is also noted in Frequently Asked Questions section of Julia manual.
julia> (-1)^(1/3)
ERROR: DomainError with -1.0:
Exponentiation yielding a complex result requires a complex argument.
Replace x^y with (x+0im)^y, Complex(x)^y, or similar.
julia> Complex(-1)^(1/3)
0.5 + 0.8660254037844386im
Note that The behavior of returning a complex number for exponentiation of negative values is not really different than, say, MATLAB's behavior
>>> (-1)^(1/3)
ans =
0.5000 + 0.8660i
What you want, however, is to plot the real cube root.
You can go with
plot(x -> x < 0 ? -(-x)^(1//3) : x^(1//3), -1, 1)
to enforce real cube root or use the built-in cbrt function for that instead.
plot(cbrt, -1, 1)
It also has an alias ∛.
plot(∛, -1, 1)
F(x) is an odd function, you just use [0 1] as input variable.
The plot on [-1 0] is deducted as follow
The code is below
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Function f
f = lambda x: x**(1/3)
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
x1 = np.linspace(0, 1, num = 100)
x2 = np.linspace(-1, 0, num = 100)
ax.plot(x1, f(x1))
ax.plot(x2, -f(x1[::-1]))
ax.axhline(y=0, color='k')
ax.axvline(x=0, color='k')
plt.show()
Plot
That Google plot makes no sense to me. For x > 0 it's ok, but for negative values of x the correct result is complex, and the Google plot appears to be showing the negative of the absolute value, which is strange.
Below you can see the output from Matlab, which is less fussy about types than Julia. As you can see it does not agree with your plot.
From the plot you can see that positive x values give a real-valued answer, while negative x give a complex-valued answer. The reason Julia errors for negative inputs, is that they are very concerned with type stability. Having the output type of a function depend on the input value would cause a type instability, which harms performance. This is less of a concern for Matlab or Python, etc.
If you want a plot similar the above in Julia, you can define your function like this:
f = x -> sign(x) * abs(complex(x)^(1/3))
Edit: Actually, a better and faster version is
f = x -> sign(x) * abs(x)^(1/3)
Yeah, it looks awkward, but that's because you want a really strange plot, which imho makes no sense for the function x^(1/3).
The logistic map (a map is a function that takes its value at any time step to its value at the next time step) is a model that has its roots in the prediction of animal population sizes. It has become famous, in part, due to special cases of its parameterization that exhibit surprising chaotic behavior. The logistic map equation is
xi+1 = rxi(1 - xi)
where xi ∈ [0,1] is the value ratio of current population size to maximum possible size at time i, xi+1 is the ratio at the next generation and r is the driving rate, representing animal reproduction and death. For r < 3.5 the population eventually reaches a stable size or will oscillate between a set of fixed values. However, if r > 3.5 then the system destabilizes and exhibits chaotic behavior!
That is background or context for the following problem statement:
Generate a set of points S = {r, x} where, for each r ∈ [1.0, 4.1] by increments of 0.001025 there will be a sequence of xi values for i = 0,...,16. So, for each r value there will be 17 xi values. Use x0 = 0.01. Depending on your implementation, you may find the rbind function useful. It may take a few seconds for the code to run since it will generate a lot of points in S. No more than 10 lines of R code.
Admittedly, this is a lab assignment; however, I am not a student in the class. I am learning R, and I am trying to work through the online assignments and come up with a solution myself. I have tried to create the set of points to plot, and based on manual verification of a few points, the set looks accurate.
for(j in c(0:3024)) {
rm(x)
x <- 1:17
x[1] <- 0.01
r <- 1 + (j * 0.001025)
for(i in c(1:(17-1))) {
x[i+1] <- r *x[i] * (1 - x[i])
}
if (j==0) {
binded <- cbind(r,x)
} else {
binded <- rbind(binded, cbind(r,x))
}
}
When I invoke plot(binded, pch='.') RStudio displays the result as a straight line. So I am unsure if I am using plot correctly, or even if I am generating all the points correctly. If I decrease the maximum value of j to something less than 2000, you will see a plot; it is just when the j value iterates up to 3024 that you only plot a straight line.
I believe your code is correct, what happens is when time exceeds 4, the of iterations are widely unstable and are going to -infinity. This large variation in the y value is compressing the scale and making the plot look like a flat line.
Cutting off the tail end of the matrix makes a very interesting plot:
plot(binded[-which(binded[,2]<0),], pch=".")
If you do want to plot the entire matrix, consider manually setting your y-axis limits to [0,1]. This way, the plot won't be stretched down to -1e24.
As an added bonus, here's a version in a different plotting library that has points colored by i.
How should I interpret
How do I interpret this? One way is to take it as logn(logn) and other is . Both would be giving different answers.
For eg:
Taking base 2 and n=1024, in first case we get 10*10 as ans. In the second case, we get 10^10 as ans or am I doing something wrong?
From a programmer's viewpoing a good way to better understand a function is to plot it at different parts of its domain.
But what is the domain of f(x) := ln(x)^ln(x)? Well, given that the exponent is not an integer, the base cannot be smaller than 1. Why? Because ln(x) is negative for 0 < x < 1 and it is not even defined for x <= 0.
But what about x = 1. Given that ln(1) = 0, we would get 0^0, which is not defined either. So, let's plot f(x) for x between: 1.000001 and 1.1. We get:
The plot reveals that there would be no harm in extending the definition of f(x) at 1 in this way (let me use pseudocode here):
f(x) := if x = 1 then 1 else ln(x)^ln(x)
Now, let's see what happens for larger values of x. Here is a plot between 1 and 10:
This plot is also interesting because it exposes a singular behavior between 1 and 3, so let's plot that part of the domain to see it better:
There are a couple of questions that one could ask by looking at this plot. For instance, what is the value of x such that f(x)=1? Mm... this value is visibly between 2.7 and 2.8 (much closer to 2.7). And what number do we know that is a little bit larger than 2.7? This number should be related to the ln function, right? Well, ln is logarithm in base e and the number e is something like 2.71828182845904.... So, it looks like a good candidate, doesn't it? Let's see:
f(e) = ln(e)^ln(e) = 1^1 = 1!
So, yes, the answer to our question is e.
Another interesting value of x is the one where the curve has a minimum, which lies somewhere between 1.4 and 1.5. But since this answer is getting too long, I will stop here. Of course, you can keep plotting and answering your own questions as you happen to encounter them. And remember, you can use iterative numeric algorithms to find values of x or f(x) that, for whatever reason, appear interesting to you.
Because log(n^log n)=(log n)^2, I would assume that log n^log n should be interpreted as (log n)^(log n). Otherwise, there's no point in the exponentiation. But whoever wrote that down for you should have clarified.
I am stuck in simple problem. I have a scatter plot.
I am plotted confidence lines around it using my a custom formula. Now, i just want only the names outside the cutoff lines to be displayed nothing inside. But, I can't figure out how to subset my data on the based of the line co-ordinates.
The line is plotted using the lines function which is a vector of 128 x and y values. Now, how do I subset my data (x,y points) based on these 2 values. I can apply a static limit of a single number of sub-setting data like 1,2 or 3 but how to use a vector to subset data, got me stuck.
For an reproducible example, consider :
df=data.frame(x=seq(2,16,by=2),y=seq(2,16,by=2),lab=paste("label",seq(2,16,by=2),sep=''))
plot(df[,1],df[,2])
# adding lines
lines(seq(1,15),seq(15,1),lwd=1, lty=2)
# adding labels
text(df[,1],df[,2],labels=df[,3],pos=3,col="red",cex=0.75)
Now, I need just the labels, which are outside or intersecting the line.
What I was trying to subset my dataframe with the values used for the lines, but I cant make it right.
Now, static sub-setting can be done for single values like
df[which(df[,1]>8 & df[,2]>8),] but how to do it for whole list.
I also tried sapply, to cycle over all the values of x and y used for lines on the df iteratively, but most values become +ve for a limit but false for other values.
Thanks
I will speak about your initial volcano-type-graph problem and not the made up one because they are totally different.
So I really thought this a lot and I believe I reached a solid conclusion. There are two options:
1. You know the equations of the lines, which would be really easy to work with.
2. You do not know the equation of the lines which means we need to work with an approximation.
Some geometry:
The function shows the equation of a line. For a given pair of coordinates (x, y), if y > the right hand side of the equation when you pass x in, then the point is above the line else below the line. The same concept stands if you have a curve (as in your case).
If you have the equations then it is easy to do the above in my code below and you are set. If not you need to make an approximation to the curve. To do that you will need the following code:
df=data.frame(x=seq(2,16,by=2),y=seq(2,16,by=2),lab=paste("label",seq(2,16,by=2),sep=''))
make_vector <- function(df) {
lab <- vector()
for (i in 1:nrow(df)) {
this_row <- df[i,] #this will contain the three elements per row
if ( (this_row[1] < max(line1x) & this_row[2] > max(line1y) & this_row[2] < a + b*this_row[1])
|
(this_row[1] > min(line2x) & this_row[2] > max(line2y) & this_row[2] > a + b*this_row[1]) ) {
lab[i] <- this_row[3]
} else {
lab[i] <- <NA>
}
}
return(lab)
}
#this_row[1] = your x
#this_row[2] = your y
#this_row[3] = your label
df$labels <- make_vector(df)
plot(df[,1],df[,2])
# adding lines
lines(seq(1,15),seq(15,1),lwd=1, lty=2)
# adding labels
text(df[,1],df[,2],labels=df[,4],pos=3,col="red",cex=0.75)
The important bit is the function. Imagine that you have df as you created it with x,y and labs. You also will have a vector with the x,y coordinates for line1 and x,y coordinates for line2.
Let's see the condition of line1 only (the same exists for line 2 which is implemented on the code above):
this_row[1] < max(line1x) & this_row[2] > max(line1y) & this_row[2] < a + b*this_row[1]
#translates to:
#this_row[1] < max(line1x) = your x needs to be less than the max x (vertical line in graph below
#this_row[2] > max(line1y) = your y needs to be greater than the max y (horizontal line in graph below
#this_row[2] < a + b*this_row[1] = your y needs to be less than the right hand side of the equation (to have a point above i.e. left of the line)
#check below what the line is
This will make something like the below graph (this is a bit horrible and also magnified but it is just a reference. Visualize it approximating your lines):
The above code would pick all the points in the area above the triangle and within the y=1 and x=1 lines.
Finally the equation:
Having 2 points' coordinates you can figure out a line's equation solving a system of two equations and 2 parameters a and b. (y = a +bx by replacing y,x for each point)
The 2 points to pick are the two points closest to the tangent of the first line (line1). Chose those arbitrarily according to your data. The closest to the tangent the better. Just plot the spots and eyeball.
Having done all the above you have your points with your labels (approximately at least).
And that is the only thing you can do!
Long talk but hope it helps.
P.S. I haven't tested the code because I have no data.
I am trying to plot large amounts of points using some library. The points are ordered by time and their values can be considered unpredictable.
My problem at the moment is that the sheer number of points makes the library take too long to render. Many of the points are redundant (that is - they are "on" the same line as defined by a function y = ax + b). Is there a way to detect and remove redundant points in order to speed rendering ?
Thank you for your time.
The following is a variation on the Ramer-Douglas-Peucker algorithm for 1.5d graphs:
Compute the line equation between first and last point
Check all other points to find what is the most distant from the line
If the worst point is below the tolerance you want then output a single segment
Otherwise call recursively considering two sub-arrays, using the worst point as splitter
In python this could be
def simplify(pts, eps):
if len(pts) < 3:
return pts
x0, y0 = pts[0]
x1, y1 = pts[-1]
m = float(y1 - y0) / float(x1 - x0)
q = y0 - m*x0
worst_err = -1
worst_index = -1
for i in xrange(1, len(pts) - 1):
x, y = pts[i]
err = abs(m*x + q - y)
if err > worst_err:
worst_err = err
worst_index = i
if worst_err < eps:
return [(x0, y0), (x1, y1)]
else:
first = simplify(pts[:worst_index+1], eps)
second = simplify(pts[worst_index:], eps)
return first + second[1:]
print simplify([(0,0), (10,10), (20,20), (30,30), (50,0)], 0.1)
The output is [(0, 0), (30, 30), (50, 0)].
About python syntax for arrays that may be non obvious:
x[a:b] is the part of array from index a up to index b (excluded)
x[n:] is the array made using elements of x from index n to the end
x[:n] is the array made using first n elements of x
a+b when a and b are arrays means concatenation
x[-1] is the last element of an array
An example of the results of running this implementation on a graph with 100,000 points with increasing values of eps can be seen here.
I came across this question after I had this very idea. Skip redundant points on plots. I believe I came up with a far better and simpler solution and I'm happy to share as my first proposed solution on SO. I've coded it and it works well for me. It also takes into account the screen scale. There may be 100 points in value between those plot points, but if the user has a chart sized small, they won't see them.
So, iterating through your data/plot loop, before you draw/add your next data point, look at the next value ahead and calculate the change in screen scale (or value, but I think screen scale for the above-mentioned reason is better). Now do the same for the next value ahead (getting these values is just a matter of peeking ahead in your array/collection/list/etc adding the for next step increment (probably 1/2) to the current for value whilst in the loop). If the 2 values are the same (or perhaps very minor change, per your own preference), you can skip this one point in your chart by simply adding 'continue' in the loop, skipping adding the data point as the point lies exactly on the slope between the point before and after it.
Using this method, I reduce a chart from 963 points to 427 for example, with absolutely zero visual change.
I think you might need to perhaps read this a couple of times to understand, but it's far simpler than the other best solution mentioned here, much lighter weight, and has zero visual effect on your plot.
I would probably apply a "least squares" algorithm to obtain a line of best fit. You can then go through your points and downfilter consecutive points that lie close to the line. You only need to plot the outliers, and the points that take the curve back to the line of best fit.
Edit: You may not need to employ "least squares"; if your input is expected to hover around "y=ax+b" as you say, then that's already your line of best fit and you can just use that. :)