I have the image and the vector
a = imread('Lena.tiff');
v = [0,2,5,8,10,12,15,20,25];
and this M-file
function y = Funks(I, gama, c)
[m n] = size(I);
for i=1:m
for j=1:n
J(i, j) = (I(i, j) ^ gama) * c;
end
end
y = J;
imshow(y);
when I'm trying to do this:
f = Funks(a,v,2)
I am getting this error:
??? Error using ==> mpower
Integers can only be combined with integers of the same class, or scalar doubles.
Error in ==> Funks at 5
J(i, j) = (I(i, j) ^ gama) * c;
Can anybody help me, with this please?
The error is caused because you're trying to raise a number to a vector power. Translated (i.e. replacing formal arguments with actual arguments in the function call), it would be something like:
J(i, j) = (a(i, j) ^ [0,2,5,8,10,12,15,20,25]) * 2
Element-wise power .^ won't work either, because you'll try to "stuck" a vector into a scalar container.
Later edit: If you want to apply each gamma to your image, maybe this loop is more intuitive (though not the most efficient):
a = imread('Lena.tiff'); % Pics or GTFO
v = [0,2,5,8,10,12,15,20,25]; % Gamma (ar)ray -- this will burn any picture
f = cell(1, numel(v)); % Prepare container for your results
for k=1:numel(v)
f{k} = Funks(a, v(k), 2); % Save result from your function
end;
% (Afterwards you use cell array f for further processing)
Or you may take a look at the other (more efficient if maybe not clearer) solutions posted here.
Later(er?) edit: If your tiff file is CYMK, then the result of imread is a MxNx4 color matrix, which must be handled differently than usual (because it 3-dimensional).
There are two ways I would follow:
1) arrayfun
results = arrayfun(#(i) I(:).^gama(i)*c,1:numel(gama),'UniformOutput',false);
J = cellfun(#(x) reshape(x,size(I)),results,'UniformOutput',false);
2) bsxfun
results = bsxfun(#power,I(:),gama)*c;
results = num2cell(results,1);
J = cellfun(#(x) reshape(x,size(I)),results,'UniformOutput',false);
What you're trying to do makes no sense mathematically. You're trying to assign a vector to a number. Your problem is not the MATLAB programming, it's in the definition of what you're trying to do.
If you're trying to produce several images J, each of which corresponds to a certain gamma applied to the image, you should do it as follows:
function J = Funks(I, gama, c)
[m n] = size(I);
% get the number of images to produce
k = length(gama);
% Pre-allocate the output
J = zeros(m,n,k);
for i=1:m
for j=1:n
J(i, j, :) = (I(i, j) .^ gama) * c;
end
end
In the end you will get images J(:,:,1), J(:,:,2), etc.
If this is not what you want to do, then figure out your equations first.
Related
To split a number into digits in a given base, Julia has the digits() function:
julia> digits(36, base = 4)
3-element Array{Int64,1}:
0
1
2
What's the reverse operation? If you have an array of digits and the base, is there a built-in way to convert that to a number? I could print the array to a string and use parse(), but that sounds inefficient, and also wouldn't work for bases > 10.
The previous answers are correct, but there is also the matter of efficiency:
sum([x[k]*base^(k-1) for k=1:length(x)])
collects the numbers into an array before summing, which causes unnecessary allocations. Skip the brackets to get better performance:
sum(x[k]*base^(k-1) for k in 1:length(x))
This also allocates an array before summing: sum(d.*4 .^(0:(length(d)-1)))
If you really want good performance, though, write a loop and avoid repeated exponentiation:
function undigit(d; base=10)
s = zero(eltype(d))
mult = one(eltype(d))
for val in d
s += val * mult
mult *= base
end
return s
end
This has one extra unnecessary multiplication, you could try to figure out some way of skipping that. But the performance is 10-15x better than the other approaches in my tests, and has zero allocations.
Edit: There's actually a slight risk to the type handling above. If the input vector and base have different integer types, you can get a type instability. This code should behave better:
function undigits(d; base=10)
(s, b) = promote(zero(eltype(d)), base)
mult = one(s)
for val in d
s += val * mult
mult *= b
end
return s
end
The answer seems to be written directly within the documentation of digits:
help?> digits
search: digits digits! ndigits isdigit isxdigit disable_sigint
digits([T<:Integer], n::Integer; base::T = 10, pad::Integer = 1)
Return an array with element type T (default Int) of the digits of n in the given base,
optionally padded with zeros to a specified size. More significant digits are at higher
indices, such that n == sum([digits[k]*base^(k-1) for k=1:length(digits)]).
So for your case this will work:
julia> d = digits(36, base = 4);
julia> sum([d[k]*4^(k-1) for k=1:length(d)])
36
And the above code can be shortened with the dot operator:
julia> sum(d.*4 .^(0:(length(d)-1)))
36
Using foldr and muladd for maximum conciseness and efficiency
undigits(d; base = 10) = foldr((a, b) -> muladd(base, b, a), d, init=0)
How do I evaluate the function in only one of its variables, that is, I hope to obtain another function after evaluating the function. I have the following piece of code.
deff ('[F] = fun (x, y)', 'F = x ^ 2-3 * y ^ 2 + x * y ^ 3');
fun (4, y)
I hope to get 16-3y ^ 2 + 4y ^ 3
If what you want to do is to write x = f(4,y), and later just do x(2) to get -36, that is called partial application:
Intuitively, partial function application says "if you fix the first arguments of the function, you get a function of the remaining arguments".
This is a very useful feature, and very common Functional Programming Languages, such as Haskell, but even JS and Python now are able to do it. It is also possible to do this in MATLAB and GNU/Octave using anonymous functions (see this answer). In Scilab, however, this feature is not available.
Workround
Nonetheless, Scilab itself uses a workarounds to carry a function with its arguments without fully evaluating. You see this being used in ode(), fsolve(), optim(), and others:
Create a list containing the function and the arguments to partial evaluation: list(f,arg1,arg2,...,argn)
Use another function to evaluate such list and the last argument: evalPartList(list(...),last_arg)
The implementation of evalPartList() can be something like this:
function y = evalPartList(fList,last_arg)
//fList: list in which the first element is a function
//last_arg: last argument to be applied to the function
func = fList(1); //extract function from the list
y = func(fList(2:$),last_arg); //each element of the list, from second
//to last, becomes an argument
endfunction
You can test it on Scilab's console:
--> deff ('[F] = fun (x, y)', 'F = x ^ 2-3 * y ^ 2 + x * y ^ 3');
--> x = list(fun,4)
x =
x(1)
[F]= x(1)(x,y)
x(2)
4.
--> evalPartList(x,2)
ans =
36.
This is a very simple implementation for evalPartList(), and you have to be careful not to exceed or be short on the number of arguments.
In the way you're asking, you can't.
What you're looking is called symbolic (or formal) computational mathematics, because you don't pass actual numerical values to functions.
Scilab is numerical software so it can't do such thing. But there is a toolbox scimax (installation guide) that rely on a the free formal software wxmaxima.
BUT
An ugly, stupid but still sort of working solution is to takes advantages of strings :
function F = fun (x, y) // Here we define a function that may return a constant or string depending on the input
fmt = '%10.3E'
if (type(x)==type('')) & (type(y)==type(0)) // x is string is
ys = msprintf(fmt,y)
F = x+'^2 - 3*'+ys+'^2 + '+x+'*'+ys+'^3'
end
if (type(y)==type('')) & (type(x)==type(0)) // y is string so is F
xs = msprintf(fmt,x)
F = xs+'^2 - 3*'+y+'^2 + '+xs+'*'+y+'^3'
end
if (type(y)==type('')) & (type(x)==type('')) // x&y are strings so is F
F = x+'^2 - 3*'+y+'^2 + '+x+'*'+y+'^3'
end
if (type(y)==type(0)) & (type(x)==type(0)) // x&y are constant so is F
F = x^2 - 3*y^2 + x*y^3
end
endfunction
// Then we can use this 'symbolic' function
deff('F2 = fun2(y)',' F2 = '+fun(4,'y'))
F2=fun2(2) // does compute fun(4,2)
disp(F2)
I have created a small code in Julia that is able to use function iteration to solve a simple non-linear problem.
The code is the following:
"""
Problem: find the root of f(x) = exp(-x) - x
using the fixed point iteration
(aka function iteration)
Solution: f(x) = exp(-x) - x = 0
x = exp(-x)
"""
i = 0; # initialize first iteration
x = 0; # initialize solution
error = 1; # initialize error bound
xvals = x; # initialize array of iterates
tic()
while error >= 1e-10
y = exp(-x);
xvals = [xvals;y]; # It is not needed actually
error = abs(y-x);
x = y;
i = i + 1;
println(["Solution", x', "Error:", error', "Iteration no:", i'])
end
toc()
In the above code the results are not neat for there are many decimal numbers. To my understanding, using println may not be a good idea and instead #printf or sprintf must be used, however, I was not able to put everything in one line.
Is it possible to do that?
The syntax for printf is (roughly) the same for all languages,
but it is indeed arcane.
You can use %f for floats, %e for floats in scientific notation,
%d for integers, %s for strings.
The numbers between the % and the letter are
the number of digits (or characters) before and after the comma.
i = 0
x = 0
error = Inf
while error >= 1e-10
x, previous = exp(-x), x
error = abs( x - previous )
i += 1
#printf(
"Value: %1.3f Error: %1.3e Iteration: %3d\n",
x, error, i
)
end
You could also have tried round or signif,
but since round decimal numbers cannot always be represented exactly as floats,
that does not work reliably.
I want to use instead of matlab integration command, a basic self created one. Do you have any Idea how to fix the error? If I use Matlab quad command, my algorithm works good but when I try to use my self created integral function,not suprisingly for sure, it does not work:(
M-File:
function y = trapapa(low, up, ints, fun)
y = 0;
step = (up - low) / ints;
for j = low : step : up
y = y + feval(fun,j);
end
y = (y - (feval(fun, low) + feval(fun, up))/2) * step;
Mean algorithm:
clear;
x0=linspace(0,4,3);
y=linspace(0,2,3);
for i=1:length(x0)
for j=1:length(y)
x(i,j)=y(j)+x0(i);
alpha=#(rho)((5-2*x(i,j)).*exp(y(j)-rho))./2;
%int(i,j)=quad(alpha,0,y(j))
int(i,j)=trapapa(alpha,0,y(j),10)
end
end
You are not following your function definition in the script. The fun parameter (variable alpha) is supposed to be the last one.
Try int(i,j)=trapapa(0,y(j),10,alpha)
I have a quite simple question, I think.
I've got this problem, which can be solved very easily with a recursive function, but which I wasn't able to solve iteratively.
Suppose you have any boolean matrix, like:
M:
111011111110
110111111100
001111111101
100111111101
110011111001
111111110011
111111100111
111110001111
I know this is not an ordinary boolean matrix, but it is useful for my example.
You can note there is sort of zero-paths in there...
I want to make a function that receives this matrix and a point where a zero is stored and that transforms every zero in the same area into a 2 (suppose the matrix can store any integer even it is initially boolean)
(just like when you paint a zone in Paint or any image editor)
suppose I call the function with this matrix M and the coordinate of the upper right corner zero, the result would be:
111011111112
110111111122
001111111121
100111111121
110011111221
111111112211
111111122111
111112221111
well, my question is how to do this iteratively...
hope I didn't mess it up too much
Thanks in advance!
Manuel
ps: I'd appreciate if you could show the function in C, S, python, or pseudo-code, please :D
There is a standard technique for converting particular types of recursive algorithms into iterative ones. It is called tail-recursion.
The recursive version of this code would look like (pseudo code - without bounds checking):
paint(cells, i, j) {
if(cells[i][j] == 0) {
cells[i][j] = 2;
paint(cells, i+1, j);
paint(cells, i-1, j);
paint(cells, i, j+1);
paint(cells, i, j-1);
}
}
This is not simple tail recursive (more than one recursive call) so you have to add some sort of stack structure to handle the intermediate memory. One version would look like this (pseudo code, java-esque, again, no bounds checking):
paint(cells, i, j) {
Stack todo = new Stack();
todo.push((i,j))
while(!todo.isEmpty()) {
(r, c) = todo.pop();
if(cells[r][c] == 0) {
cells[r][c] = 2;
todo.push((r+1, c));
todo.push((r-1, c));
todo.push((r, c+1));
todo.push((r, c-1));
}
}
}
Pseudo-code:
Input: Startpoint (x,y), Array[w][h], Fillcolor f
Array[x][y] = f
bool hasChanged = false;
repeat
for every Array[x][y] with value f:
check if the surrounding pixels are 0, if so:
Change them from 0 to f
hasChanged = true
until (not hasChanged)
For this I would use a Stack ou Queue object. This is my pseudo-code (python-like):
stack.push(p0)
while stack.size() > 0:
p = stack.pop()
matrix[p] = 2
for each point in Arround(p):
if matrix[point]==0:
stack.push(point)
The easiest way to convert a recursive function into an iterative function is to utilize the stack data structure to store the data instead of storing it on the call stack by calling recursively.
Pseudo code:
var s = new Stack();
s.Push( /*upper right point*/ );
while not s.Empty:
var p = s.Pop()
m[ p.x ][ p.y ] = 2
s.Push ( /*all surrounding 0 pixels*/ )
Not all recursive algorithms can be translated to an iterative algorithm. Normally only linear algorithms with a single branch can. This means that tree algorithm which have two or more branches and 2d algorithms with more paths are extremely hard to transfer into recursive without using a stack (which is basically cheating).
Example:
Recursive:
listsum: N* -> N
listsum(n) ==
if n=[] then 0
else hd n + listsum(tl n)
Iteration:
listsum: N* -> N
listsum(n) ==
res = 0;
forall i in n do
res = res + i
return res
Recursion:
treesum: Tree -> N
treesum(t) ==
if t=nil then 0
else let (left, node, right) = t in
treesum(left) + node + treesum(right)
Partial iteration (try):
treesum: Tree -> N
treesum(t) ==
res = 0
while t<>nil
let (left, node, right) = t in
res = res + node + treesum(right)
t = left
return res
As you see, there are two paths (left and right). It is possible to turn one of these paths into iteration, but to translate the other into iteration you need to preserve the state which can be done using a stack:
Iteration (with stack):
treesum: Tree -> N
treesum(t) ==
res = 0
stack.push(t)
while not stack.isempty()
t = stack.pop()
while t<>nil
let (left, node, right) = t in
stack.pop(right)
res = res + node + treesum(right)
t = left
return res
This works, but a recursive algorithm is much easier to understand.
If doing it iteratively is more important than performance, I would use the following algorithm:
Set the initial 2
Scan the matrix for finding a 0 near a 2
If such a 0 is found, change it to 2 and restart the scan in step 2.
This is easy to understand and needs no stack, but is very time consuming.
A simple way to do this iteratively is using a queue.
insert starting point into queue
get first element from queue
set to 2
put all neighbors that are still 0 into queue
if queue is not empty jump to 2.