I was told to solve this problem:
given a1, ..., an are real numbers. Need to calculate min(a1, -a1a2, a1a2a3, ...,(-1)^(n+1) a1a2,... an)
but I cannot understand the logic of the task. Could you tell me what I should do?
For example, what is (-l)^n+1? I've never seen it before.
What you should do is:
use the n real numbers of input to ...
... calculate the n numbers defined by the quoted formula (though you only need one value at a time to be more efficient)
while doing so keep track of the smallest number you encounter, that is the final result
concerning the (-1)^(n+1), it is reasonable to assume (as e.g. in the comment by Weather Vane and others) that it means powers of -1 (in a lazy and unexplained but non-C++ syntax)
note that you can easily calculate one value from the previous one by simple multiplication
probably you should do all of that by writing a program, an assumption based on the fact that you are asking on StackOverflow and tag a programming language
Related
This documentation page of boost::math::tools::brent_find_minima says about its first argument:
The function to minimise: a function object (or C++ lambda) ... with no maxima occurring in that interval.
But what happens if this is not the case? (After all, this condition is rather difficult to pre-ensure, especially since the function is usually expensive to evaluate at many points.) Best would be to detect violations to this condition on the fly.
If this condition is violated, does boost throw an exception, or does it exhibit undefined behavior?
A workaround I am thinking of is to build the checking into the lambda ("function to minimize"), by capturing and maintaining a std::map<double,double> holding all the points that have been evaluated, and comparing each new evaluation with its nearest neighbor in each direction, to check whether there may be a local maximum. But I don't want to do all that if it isn't necessary.
There is no way for this to be done. If you read Corless's A Graduate Introduction to Numerical Methods, you'll read a very interesting point: All numerically defined functions are discontinuous halfway between representables, and have zero derivatives between representables. Basically they can be thought of as a sum of Heaviside functions.
So none of them are differentiable in the mathematical sense. Ok, maybe you think this is a bit unfair-the scale should be zoomed out. But how much? We know that |x-1| isn't differentiable at x=1, but how could a computer tell that? How does it know that there isn't some locally smooth mollifier that makes it differentiable between x=1-eps and x=1+eps? I don't think there's a good answer to this question.
One of the most difficult problems in this class arises in quadrature. Some of these methods work fast when the complex extension of the function has poles far from the real axis. Try to numerically determine that.
Function spaces are impossible to determine numerically. Users just have to get it right.
Is it possible to constrain parameters in Stata's xttobit to be non-negative? I read a paper where the authors said they did just that, and I am trying to work out how.
I know that you can constrain parameters to be strictly positive by exponentially transforming the variables (e.g. gen x1_e = exp(x1)) and then calling nlcom after estimation (e.g. nlcom exp(_b[x1:_y]) where y is the independent variable. (That may not be exactly right, but I am pretty sure the general idea is correct. Here is a similar question from Statlist re: nlsur).
But what would a non-negative constraint look like? I know that one way to proceed is by transforming the variables, for example squaring them. However, I tried this with the author's data and still found negative estimates from xttobit. Sorry if this is a trivial question, but it has me a little confused.
(Note: this was first posted on CV by mistake. Mea culpa.)
Update: It seems I misunderstand what transformation means. Suppose we want to estimate the following random effects model:
y_{it} = a + b*x_{it} + v_i + e_{it}
where v_i is the individual random effect for i and e_{it} is the idiosyncratic error.
From the first answer, would, say, an exponential transformation to constrain all coefficients to be positive look like:
y_{it} = exp(a) + exp(b)*x_{it} + v_i + e_{it}
?
I think your understanding of constraining parameters by transforming the associated variable is incorrect. You don't transform the variable, but rather you fit your model having reexpressed your model in terms of transformed parameters. For more details, see the FAQ at http://www.stata.com/support/faqs/statistics/regression-with-interval-constraints/, and be prepared to work harder on your problem than you might have expected to, since you will need to replace the use of xttobit with mlexp for the transformed parameterization of the tobit log-likelihood function.
With regard to the difference between non-negative and strictly positive constraints, for continuous parameters all such constraints are effectively non-negative, because (for reasonable parameterization) a strictly positive constraint can be made arbitrarily close to zero.
I'm trying to use recursion to output the possible outcomes of N number of coin flips. For instance, if I flip a coin 3 times the possible outputs could be TTT, TTH, THT, THH, HTT, HTH, HHT, and HHH. I'm not looking for an answer but a push in the right direction. Would this be best done with a character array? Or assigning H and T integer values?
Alternatively, since it can only ever be heads or tails, you could use a boolean value. This would be more efficient for memory and will also help avoid the need for error checking. But there is no single way of doing it, experiment and see what works best.
I would say integers. Look up permutations and simple combinatorics if youhaven't already. Remember, recursion operates on the principal of breaking a big problem into smaller ones.
Here's the problem:
I am currently trying to create a control system which is required to find a solution to a series of complex linear equations without a unique solution.
My problem arises because there will ever only be six equations, while there may be upwards of 20 unknowns (usually way more than six unknowns). Of course, this will not yield an exact solution through the standard Gaussian elimination or by changing them in a matrix to reduced row echelon form.
However, I think that I may be able to optimize things further and get a more accurate solution because I know that each of the unknowns cannot have a value smaller than zero or greater than one, but it is free to take on any value in between them.
Of course, I am trying to create code that would find a correct solution, but in the case that there are multiple combinations that yield satisfactory results, I would want to minimize Sum of (value of unknown * efficiency constant) over all unknowns, i.e. Sigma[xI*eI] from I=0 to n, but finding an accurate solution is of a greater priority.
Performance is also important, due to the fact that this algorithm may need to be run several times per second.
So, does anyone have any ideas to help me on implementing this?
Edit: You might just want to stick to linear programming with equality and inequality constraints, but here's an interesting exact solution that does not incorporate the constraint that your unknowns are between 0 and 1.
Here's a powerpoint discussing your problem: http://see.stanford.edu/materials/lsoeldsee263/08-min-norm.pdf
I'll translate your problem into math to make things a bit easier to figure out:
you have a 6x20 matrix A and a vector x with 20 elements. You want to minimize (x^T)e subject to Ax=y. According to the slides, if you were just minimizing the sum of x, then the answer is A^T(AA^T)^(-1)y. I'll take another look at this as soon as I get the chance and see what the solution is to minimizing (x^T)e (ie your specific problem).
Edit: I looked in the powerpoint some more and near the end there's a slide entitled "General norm minimization with equality constraints". I am going to switch the notation to match the slide's:
Your problem is that you want to minimize ||Ax-b||, where b = 0 and A is your e vector and x is the 20 unknowns. This is subject to Cx=d. Apparently the answer is:
x=(A^T A)^-1 (A^T b -C^T(C(A^T A)^-1 C^T)^-1 (C(A^T A)^-1 A^Tb - d))
it's not pretty, but it's not as bad as you might think. There's really aren't that many calculations. For example (A^TA)^-1 only needs to be calculated once and then you can reuse the answer. And your matrices aren't that big.
Note that I didn't incorporate the constraint that the elements of x are within [0,1].
It looks like the solution for what I am doing is with Linear Programming. It is starting to come back to me, but if I have other problems I will post them in their own dedicated questions instead of turning this into an encyclopedia.
The Given Problem:
Given a theater with n rows, m seats, and a list of seats that are reserved. Given these values, determine how many ways two friends can sit together in the same row.
So, if the theater was a size of 2x3 and the very first seat in the first row was reserved, there would be 3 different seatings that these two guys can take.
The Problem That I'm Dealing With
The function itself is supposed to return the number of seatings that there are based on these constraints. The return value is a long long.
I've gone through my code many many times...and I'm pretty sure that it's right. All I'm doing is incrementing this one value. However, ALL of the values that my function return differ from the actual solution by 1 or 2.
Any ideas? And if you think that it's just something wrong with my code, please tell me. I don't mind being called an idiot just as long as I learn something.
Unless you're overflowing or underflowing, it definitely sounds like something is wrong with your code. For integral types, there are no precision ambiguities in c or c++
First, C++ doesn't have a long long type. Second, in C99, long long can represent any integral value from LLONG_MIN (<= -2^63) to LLONG_MAX (>= 2^63 - 1) exactly. The problem lies elsewhere.
Given the description of the problem, I think it is unambiguous.
Normally, the issue is that you don't know if the order in which the combinations are taken is important or not, but the example clearly disambiguate: if the order was important we would have 6 solutions, not 3.
What is the value that your code gives for this toy example ?
Anyway I can add a few examples with my own values if you wish, so that you can compare against them, I can't do much more for you unless you post your code. Obviously, the rows are independent so I'm only going to show the result row by row.
X occupied seat
. free seat
1: X..X
1: .X..
2: X...X
3: X...X..
5: ..X.....
From a computation point of view, I should note it's (at least) an O(N) process where N is the number of seats: you have to inspect nearly each seat once, except the first (and last) ones in case the second (and next to last) are occupied; and that's effectively possible to solve this linearly.
From a technic point of view:
make sure you initialize your variable to 0
make sure you don't count too many seats on toy example
I'd be happy to help more but I would not like to give you the full solution before you have a chance to think it over and review your algorithm calmly.