Say I would like to solve a parametric limit: in the following example, alpha > 0 is the parameter.
import sympy as sp
x = sp.symbols("x", real=True)
alpha = sp.symbols("alpha", real=True, positive=True, nonzero=True)
expr = (x * sp.exp(x) - sp.exp(2 * sp.sqrt(1 + x**2))) / (sp.exp(alpha * x) + x** alpha)
sp.limit(expr, x, sp.oo)
If I execute the code I get the result -oo, which is arguably incorrect.
If I were to compute this limit by hand I would look at the numerator and conclude that exp(2 * sp.sqrt(1 + x**2)) is of the same order of exp(2*x), which dominates x * exp(x). Similarly, looking at the denominator I would say that exp(alpha * x) dominates the term x**alpha.
Therefore, I can compute the limit of the function -exp((2 - alpha) * x). The correct result would be:
-oo for 0 < alpha < 2
-1 for alpha = 2
0 for alpha > 2
Is there an easy way to achieve this result with sympy?
This should be considered a bug in SymPy. I would suggest opening an issue about it https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues.
Regarding what you are asking for in general, it isn't implemented yet. See https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/13312.
Related
Tell me please, How to forbid to open brackets? For example,
8 * (x + 1) It should be that way, not 8 * x + 8
Using evaluate = False doesn't help
The global evaluate flag will allow you to do this in the most natural manner:
>>> with evaluate(False):
... 8*(x+1)
...
8*(x + 1)
Otherwise, Mul(8, x + 1, evaluate=False) is a lower level way to do this. And conversion from a string (already in that form) is possible as
>>> S('8*(x+1)',evaluate=False)
8*(x + 1)
In general, SymPy will convert the expression to its internal format, which includes some minimal simplifications. For example, sqrt is represented internally as Pow(x,1/2). Also, some reordering of terms may happen.
In your specific case, you could try:
from sympy import factor
from sympy.abc import x, y
y = x + 1
g = 8 * y
g = factor(g)
print(g) # "8 * (x + 1)"
But, if for example you have g = y * y, SymPy will either represent it as a second power ((x + 1)**2), or expand it to x**2 + 2*x + 1.
PS: See also this answer by SymPy's maintainer for some possible workarounds. (It might complicate things later when you would like to evaluate or simplify this expression in other calculations.)
How about sympy.collect_const(sympy.S("8 * (x + 1)"), 8)?
In general you might be interested in some of these expression manipulations: https://docs.sympy.org/0.7.1/modules/simplify/simplify.html
Lets have two points, (x1, y1) and (x2,y2)
dx = |x1 - x2|
dy = |y1 - y2|
D_manhattan = dx + dy where dx,dy >= 0
I am a bit stuck with how to get x1 - x2 positive for |x1 - x2|, presumably I introduce a binary variable representing the polarity, but I am not allowed multiplying a polarity switch to x1 - x2 as they are all unknown variables and that would result in a quadratic.
If you are minimizing an increasing function of |x| (or maximizing a decreasing function, of course),
you can always have the aboslute value of any quantity x in a lp as a variable absx such as:
absx >= x
absx >= -x
It works because the value absx will 'tend' to its lower bound, so it will either reach x or -x.
On the other hand, if you are minimizing a decreasing function of |x|, your problem is not convex and cannot be modelled as a lp.
For all those kind of questions, it would be much better to add a simplified version of your problem with the objective, as this it often usefull for all those modelling techniques.
Edit
What I meant is that there is no general solution to this kind of problem: you cannot in general represent an absolute value in a linear problem, although in practical cases it is often possible.
For example, consider the problem:
max y
y <= | x |
-1 <= x <= 2
0 <= y
it is bounded and has an obvious solution (2, 2), but it cannot be modelled as a lp because the domain is not convex (it looks like the shape under a 'M' if you draw it).
Without your model, it is not possible to answer the question I'm afraid.
Edit 2
I am sorry, I did not read the question correctly. If you can use binary variables and if all your distances are bounded by some constant M, you can do something.
We use:
a continuous variable ax to represent the absolute value of the quantity x
a binary variable sx to represent the sign of x (sx = 1 if x >= 0)
Those constraints are always verified if x < 0, and enforce ax = x otherwise:
ax <= x + M * (1 - sx)
ax >= x - M * (1 - sx)
Those constraints are always verified if x >= 0, and enforce ax = -x otherwise:
ax <= -x + M * sx
ax >= -x - M * sx
This is a variation of the "big M" method that is often used to linearize quadratic terms. Of course you need to have an upper bound of all the possible values of x (which, in your case, will be the value of your distance: this will typically be the case if your points are in some bounded area)
I need a method that allows me to find the Y-coordinate on a Cubic Bezier Curve, given an x-coordinate.
I've come across lots of places telling me to treat it as a cubic function then attempt to find the roots, which I understand. HOWEVER the equation for a Cubic Bezier curve is (for x-coords):
X(t) = (1-t)^3 * X0 + 3*(1-t)^2 * t * X1 + 3*(1-t) * t^2 * X2 + t^3 * X3
What confuses me is the addition of the (1-t) values. For instance, if I fill in the X values with some random numbers:
400 = (1-t)^3 * 100 + 3*(1-t)^2 * t * 600 + 3*(1-t) * t^2 * 800 + t^3 * 800
then rearrange it:
800t^3 + 3*(1-t)*800t^2 + 3*(1-t)^2*600t + (1-t)^3*100 -400 = 0
I still don't know the value of the (1-t) coefficients. How I am I supposed to solve the equation when (1-t) is still unknown?
There are three common ways of expressing a cubic bezier curve.
First x as a function of t
x(t) = sum( f_i(t) x_i )
= (1-t)^3 * x0 + 3*(1-t)^2 * t * x1 + 3*(1-t) * t^2 * x2 + t^3 * x3
Secondly y as a function of x
y(x) = sum( f_i(x) a_i )
= (1-x)^3 * y0 + 3*(1-x)^2 * x * y1 + 3*(1-x) * x^2 * y2 + x^3 * y3
These first two are mathematically the same, just using different names for the variables.
Judging by your description "find the Y-coordinate on a Cubic Bezier Curve, given an x-coordinate on it." I'm guessing that you've got a question using the second equation are are trying to rearrange the first equation to help you solve it, where as you should be using the second equation. If thats the case, then no rearranging or solving is required - just plug your x value in and you have the solution.
Its possible that you have an equation of the third kind case, which is the ugly and hard case.
This is both the x and y parameters are cubic Beziers of a third variable t.
x(t) = sum( f_i(t) x_i )
y(t) = sum( f_i(t) y_i )
If this is your case. Let me know and I can detail what you need to do to solve it.
I think this is a fair CS question, so I'm going to attempt to show how I solved this. Note that a given x may have more than 1 y value associated with it. In the case where I needed this, that was guaranteed not to be the case, so you'll have to figure out how to determine which one you want.
I iterated over t generating an array of x and y values. I did it at a fairly high resolution for my purposes. (I was looking to generate an 8-bit look-up table, so I used ~1000 points.) I just plugged t into the bezier equation for the next x and the next y coordinates to store in the array. Once I had the entire thing generated, I scanned through the array to find the 2 nearest x values. (Or if there was an exact match, used that.) I then did a linear interpolation on that very small line segment to get the y-value I needed.
Developing the expression further should get you rid of the (1 - t) factors
If you run:
expand(800*t^3 + 3*(1-t)*800*t^2 + 3*(1-t)^2*600*t + (1-t)^3*100 -400 = 0);
In either wxMaxima or Maple (you have to add the parameter t in this one though), you get:
100*t^3 - 900*t^2 + 1500*t - 300 = 0
Solve the new cubic equation for t (you can use the cubic equation formula for that), after you got t, you can find x doing:
x = (x4 - x0) * t (asuming x4 > x0)
Equation for Bezier curve (getting x value):
Bx = (-t^3 + 3*t^2 - 3*t + 1) * P0x +
(3*t^3 - 6*t^2 + 3*t) * P1x +
(-3*t^3 + 3*t^2) * P2x +
(t^3) * P3x
Rearrange in the form of a cubic of t
0 = (-P0x + 3*P1x - 3*P2x + P3x) * t^3+
(3*P0x - 6*P1x + 3*P2x) * t^2 +
(-3*P0x + 3*P1x) * t +
(P0x) * P3x - Bx
Solve this using the cubic formula to find values for t. There may be multiple real values of t (if your curve crosses the same x point twice). In my case I was dealing with a situation where there was only ever a single y value for any value of x. So I was able to just take the only real root as the value of t.
a = -P0x + 3.0 * P1x - 3.0 * P2x + P3x;
b = 3.0 * P0x - 6.0 * P1x + 3.0 * P2x;
c = -3.0 * P0x + 3.0 * P1x;
d = P0x;
t = CubicFormula(a, b, c, d);
Next put the value of t back into the Bezier curve for y
By = (1-t)^3 * P0x +
3t(1-t)^2 * P1x +
3t^2(1-t) * P2x +
t^3 * P3x
So I've been looking around for some sort of method to allow me to find the Y-coordinate on a Cubic Bezier Curve, given an x-coordinate on it.
Consider a cubic bezier curve between points (0, 0) and (0, 100), with control points at (0, 33) and (0, 66). There are an infinite number of Y's there for a given X. So there's no equation that's going to solve Y given X for an arbitrary cubic bezier.
For a robust solution, you'll likely want to start with De Casteljau's algorithm
Split the curve recursively until individual segments approximate a straight line. You can then detect whether and where these various line segments intercept your x or whether they are vertical line segments whose x corresponds to the x you're looking for (my example above).
Vincent answered Fast Arc Cos algorithm by suggesting this function.
float arccos(float x)
{
x = 1 - (x + 1);
return pi * x / 2;
}
The question is, why x = 1 - (x + 1) and not x = -x?
It returns a different result only when (x + 1) causes a loss of precision, that is, x is many orders of magnitude larger or smaller than one.
But I don't think this is tricky or sleight of hand, I think it's just plain wrong.
cos(0) = 1 but f(1) = -pi/2
cos(pi/2) = 0 but f(0) = 0
cos(pi) = -1 but f(-1) = pi/2
where f(x) is Vincent's arccos implementation. All of them are off by pi/2, a linear approximation that gets at least these three points correct would be
g(x) = (1 - x) * pi / 2
I don't see the details instantly, but think about what happens as x approaches 1 or -1 from either side, and consider roundoff error.
Addition causes that both numbers are normalized (in this case, relevant for x). IIRC, in Knuth's volume 2, in the chapter on floating-point arithmetic, you can even see an expression like x+0.
I'm kind of stuck here, I guess it's a bit of a brain teaser. If I have numbers in the range between 0.5 to 1 how can I normalize it to be between 0 to 1?
Thanks for any help, maybe I'm just a bit slow since I've been working for the past 24 hours straight O_O
Others have provided you the formula, but not the work. Here's how you approach a problem like this. You might find this far more valuable than just knowning the answer.
To map [0.5, 1] to [0, 1] we will seek a linear map of the form x -> ax + b. We will require that endpoints are mapped to endpoints and that order is preserved.
Method one: The requirement that endpoints are mapped to endpoints and that order is preserved implies that 0.5 is mapped to 0 and 1 is mapped to 1
a * (0.5) + b = 0 (1)
a * 1 + b = 1 (2)
This is a simultaneous system of linear equations and can be solved by multiplying equation (1) by -2 and adding equation (1) to equation (2). Upon doing this we obtain b = -1 and substituting this back into equation (2) we obtain that a = 2. Thus the map x -> 2x - 1 will do the trick.
Method two: The slope of a line passing through two points (x1, y1) and (x2, y2) is
(y2 - y1) / (x2 - x1).
Here we will use the points (0.5, 0) and (1, 1) to meet the requirement that endpoints are mapped to endpoints and that the map is order-preserving. Therefore the slope is
m = (1 - 0) / (1 - 0.5) = 1 / 0.5 = 2.
We have that (1, 1) is a point on the line and therefore by the point-slope form of an equation of a line we have that
y - 1 = 2 * (x - 1) = 2x - 2
so that
y = 2x - 1.
Once again we see that x -> 2x - 1 is a map that will do the trick.
Subtract 0.5 (giving you a new range of 0 - 0.5) then multiply by 2.
double normalize( double x )
{
// I'll leave range validation up to you
return (x - 0.5) * 2;
}
To add another generic answer.
If you want to map the linear range [A..B] to [C..D], you can apply the following steps:
Shift the range so the lower bound is 0. (subract A from both bounds:
[A..B] -> [0..B-A]
Scale the range so it is [0..1]. (divide by the upper bound):
[0..B-A] -> [0..1]
Scale the range so it has the length of the new range which is D-C. (multiply with D-C):
[0..1] -> [0..D-C]
Shift the range so the lower bound is C. (add C to the bounds):
[0..D-C] -> [C..D]
Combining this to a single formula, we get:
(D-C)*(X-A)
X' = ----------- + C
(B-A)
In your case, A=0.5, B=1, C=0, D=1 you get:
(X-0.5)
X' = ------- = 2X-1
(0.5)
Note, if you have to convert a lot of X to X', you can change the formula to:
(D-C) C*B - A*D
X' = ----- * X + ---------
(B-A) (B-A)
It is also interesting to take a look at non linear ranges. You can take the same steps, but you need an extra step to transform the linear range to a nonlinear range.
Lazyweb answer: To convert a value x from [minimum..maximum] to [floor..ceil]:
General case:
normalized_x = ((ceil - floor) * (x - minimum))/(maximum - minimum) + floor
To normalize to [0..255]:
normalized_x = (255 * (x - minimum))/(maximum - minimum)
To normalize to [0..1]:
normalized_x = (x - minimum)/(maximum - minimum)
× 2 − 1
should do the trick
You could always use clamp or saturate within your math to make sure your final value is between 0-1. Some saturate at the end, but I've seen it done during a computation, too.