I haven't been able to find particular solutions to this differential equation.
from sympy import *
m = float(raw_input('Mass:\n> '))
g = 9.8
k = float(raw_input('Drag Coefficient:\n> '))
v = Function('v')
f1 = g * m
t = Symbol('t')
v = Function('v')
equation = dsolve(f1 - k * v(t) - m * Derivative(v(t)), 0)
print equation
for m = 1000 and k = .2 it returns
Eq(f(t), C1*exp(-0.0002*t) + 49000.0)
which is correct but I want the equation solved for when v(0) = 0 which should return
Eq(f(t), 49000*(1-exp(-0.0002*t))
I believe Sympy is not yet able to take into account initial conditions. Although dsolve has the option ics for entering initial conditions (see the documentation), it appears to be of limited use.
Therefore, you need to apply the initial conditions manually. For example:
C1 = Symbol('C1')
C1_ic = solve(equation.rhs.subs({t:0}),C1)[0]
print equation.subs({C1:C1_ic})
Eq(v(t), 49000.0 - 49000.0*exp(-0.0002*t))
Related
I'm trying to use sympy to do some index gymnastics for me. I'm trying to calculate the derivatives of a cost function that looks like
cost = sumi (Mii)2
where M is given by a rotation
Mij = U*ki M0kl Ulj
I've written up a parametrization for the rotation matrix, from which I get the derivatives as products of Kronecker deltas. What I've got so far is
def Uder(p,q,r,s):
return KroneckerDelta(p,r)*KroneckerDelta(q,s) - KroneckerDelta(p,s)*KroneckerDelta(q,r)
from sympy import *
# Matrix size
n = symbols('n')
p = symbols('p');
i = Dummy('i')
k = Dummy('k')
l = Dummy('l')
# Matrix elements
M0 = IndexedBase('M')
U = IndexedBase('U')
# Indices
r, s = map(tensor.Idx, ['r', 's'])
# Derivative
cost_x = Sum(Sum(Sum(M0[i,i]*(Uder(k,i,r,s)*M0[k,l]*U[l,i] + U[k,i]*M0[k,l]*Uder(l,i,r,s)),(k,1,n)),(l,1,n)),(i,1,n))
print cost_x
but sympy is not evaluating the contractions for me, which should reduce to simple sums in terms of r and s, which are the rotation indices. Instead, what I get is
Sum(((-KroneckerDelta(_i, r)*KroneckerDelta(_k, s) + KroneckerDelta(_i, s)*KroneckerDelta(_k, r))*M[_k, _l]*U[_l, _i] + (-KroneckerDelta(_i, r)*KroneckerDelta(_l, s) + KroneckerDelta(_i, s)*KroneckerDelta(_l, r))*M[_k, _l]*U[_k, _i])*M[_i, _i], (_k, 1, n), (_l, 1, n), (_i, 1, n))
I'm using the latest git snapshot 4633fd5713c434c3286e3412a2399bd40fbd9569 of sympy.
I have this function to reach a certain 1 dimensional value accelerated and damped with overshoot. That is: given an inital value, a velocity and a acceleration (force/mass), the target value is attained by accelerating to it and gets increasingly damped while getting closer to the target value.
This all works fine, howver If i want to know what the TotalAngle is after time 't' I have to run this function say N steps with a 'small' dt to find the 'limit'.
I was wondering If i can (and how) to intergrate over dt so that the TotalAngle can be determined given a time 't' initially.
Regards, Tanks for any help.
dt = delta time step per frame
input = 1
TotalAngle = 0 at t=0
Velocity = 0 at t=0
void FAccelDampedWithOvershoot::Update(float dt, float input, float& Velocity, float& TotalAngle)
{
const float Force = 500000.f;
const float DampForce = 5000.f;
const float MaxAngle = 45.f;
const float InvMass = 1.f / 162400.f;
float target = MaxAngle * input;
float ratio = (target - TotalAngle) / MaxAngle;
float fMove = Force * ratio;
float fDamp = -Velocity * DampForce;
Velocity += (fMove + fDamp) * invMass * dt;
TotalAngle += Velocity * dt;
}
Updated with fixed bugs in math
Originally I've lost mass and MaxAngle a few times. This is why you should first solve it on a paper and then enter to the SO rather than trying to solve it in the text editor.
Anyway, I've fixed the math and now it seems to work reasonably well. I put fixed solution just over previous one.
Well, this looks like a Newtonian mechanics which means differential equations. Let's try to solve them.
SO is not very friendly to math formulas and I'm a bit bored to type characters so here is what I use:
F = Force
Fd = DampForce
MA = MaxAngle
A= TotalAngle
v = Velocity
m = 1 / InvMass
' for derivative i.e. something' is 1-st derivative of something by t and something'' is 2-nd derivative
if I divide you last two lines of code by dt and merge in all the other lines I can get (I also assume that input = 1 as other case is obviously symmetrical)
v' = ([F * (1 - A / MA)] - v * Fd) / m
and applying A' = v we get
m * A'' = F(1 - A/MA) - Fd * A'
or moving to one side we get a simple 2-nd order differential equation
m * A'' + Fd * A' + F/MA * A = F
IIRC, the way to solve it is to first solve characteristic equation which here is
m * x^2 + Fd * x + F/MA = 0
x[1,2] = (-Fd +/- sqrt(Fd^2 - 4*F*m/MA))/ (2*m)
I expect that part under sqrt i.e. (Fd^2 - 4*F*m/MA) is negative thus solution should be of the following form. Let
Dm = Fd/(2*m)
K = sqrt(F/MA/m - Dm^2)
(note the negated value under sqrt so it works now) then
A(t) = e^(-Dm*t) * [P * sin(K*t) + Q * cos(K*t)] + C
where P, Q and C are some constants.
The solution is easier to find as a sum of two solutions: some specific solution for
m * A'' + Fd * A' + F/MA * A = F
and a general solution for homogeneou
m * A'' + Fd * A' + F/MA * A = 0
that makes original conditions fit. Obviously specific solution A(t) = MA works and thus C = MA. So now we need to fit P and Q of general solution to match starting conditions. To find them we need
A(0) = - MA
A'(0) = V(0) = 0
Given that e^0 = 1, sin(0) = 0 and cos(0) = 1 you get something like
Q = -MA
P = 0
or
P = 0
Q = - MA
C = MA
thus
A(t) = MA * [1 - e^(-Dm*t) * cos(K*t)]
where
Dm = Fd/(2*m)
K = sqrt(F/MA/m - Dm^2)
which kind of makes sense given your task.
Note also that this equation assumes that everything happens in radians rather than degrees (i.e. derivative of [sin(t)]' is just cos(t)) so you should transform all your constants accordingly or transform the solution.
const float Force = 500000.f * M_PI / 180;
const float DampForce = 5000.f * M_PI / 180;
const float MaxAngle = M_PI_4;
which on my machine produces
Dm = 0.000268677541
K = 0.261568546
This seems to be similar to original funcion is I step with dt = 0.01f and the main obstacle seems to be precision loss because of float
Hope this helps!
This is not a full answer and I am sure someone else can work it out, but there is no room in the comments and it may help you find a better solution.
The image below shows the velocity (blue) as your function integrates at time steps 1. The red shows the function below that calculates the value for time t
The function F(t)
F(t) = sin((t / f) * pi * 2) * (1 / (((t / f) + a) ^ c)) * b
With f = 23.7, a = 1.4, c = 2, and b= 50 that give the red plot in the image above
All the values are just approximation.
f determines the frequency and is close to a match,
a,b,c control the falloff in amplitude and are a by eye guestimate.
If it does not matter that you have a perfect match then this will work for you. totalAngle uses the same function but t has 0.25 added to it. Unfortunately I did not get any values for a,b,c for totalAngle and I did notice that it was offset so you will have to add the offset value d (I normalised everything so have no idea what the range of totalAngle was)
Function F(t) for totalAngle
F(t) = sin(((t+0.25) / f) * pi * 2) * (1 / ((((t+0.25) / f) + a) ^ c)) * b + d
Sorry only have f = 23.7, c= 2, a~1.4 nothing for b=? d=?
I have a numerical analysis assignment and I need to find some coefficients by multiplying matrices. We were given an example in Mathcad, but now we have to do it in another programming language so I chose Python.
The problem is, that I get different results by multiplying matrices in respective environments. Here's the function in Python:
from numpy import *
def matrica(C, n):
N = len(C) - 1
m = N - n
A = [[0] * (N + 1) for i in range(N+1)]
A[0][0] = 1
for i in range(0, n + 1):
A[i][i] = 1
for j in range(1, m + 1):
for i in range(0, N + 1):
if i + j <= N:
A[i+j][n+j] = A[i+j][n+j] - C[i]/2
A[int(abs(i - j))][n+j] = A[int(abs(i - j))][n+j] - C[i]/2
M = matrix(A)
x = matrix([[x] for x in C])
return [float(y) for y in M.I * x]
As you can see I am using numpy library. This function is consistent with its analog in Mathcad until return statement, the part where matrices are multiplied, to be more specific. One more observation: this function returns correct matrix if N = 1.
I'm not sure I understand exactly what your code do. Could you explain a little more, like what math stuff you're actually computing. But if you want a plain regular product and if you use a numpy.matrix, why don't you use the already written matrix product?
a = numpy.matrix(...)
b = numpy.matrix(...)
p = a * b #matrix product
I am trying to solve a set of M simultaneous eqns with M variables. I input a M X 2 matrix in as an initial guess to my function and it returns a M X 2 matrix, where each entry would equal zero if my guess was correct. Thus my function can be represented as f_k(u1,u2,...uN) = 0 for k=1,2,...N. Below is the code for my function, (for simplicities sake I have left out the modules that go with this code, i.e. p. or phi. for instance. I was more wondering if anyone else has had this error before)
M = len(p.x_lat)
def main(u_A):
## unpack u_A
u_P = u_total[:,0]
u_W = u_total[:,1]
## calculate phi_A for all monomeric species
G_W = exp(-u_W)
phi_W = zeros(M)
phi_W[1:] = p.phi_Wb * G_W[1:]
## calculate phi_A for all polymeric species
G_P = exp(-u_P)
G_P[0] = 0.
G_fwd = phi.fwd_propagator(G_P,p.Np,0) #(function that takes G_P and propagates outward)
G_bkwd = phi.bkwd_propagator(G_P,p.Np,0) #(function that takes G_P and propagates inward)
phi_P = phi.phi_P(G_fwd,G_bkwd,p.norm_graft_density,p.Np) #(function that takes the two propagators and combines them to calculate a segment density at each point)
## calculate u_A components
u_intW = en.u_int_AB(p.chi_PW,phi_P,p.phi_Pb) + en.u_int_AB(p.chi_SW,p.phi_S,p.phi_Sb) #(fxn that calculates new potential from the new segment densities)
u_intW[0] = 0.
u_Wprime = u_W - u_intW
u_intP = en.u_int_AB(p.chi_PW,phi_W,p.phi_Wb) + en.u_int_AB(p.chi_PS,p.phi_S,p.phi_Sb) #(fxn that calculates new potential from the new segment densities)
u_intP[0] = 0.
u_Pprime = u_P - u_intP
## calculate f_A
phi_total = p.phi_S + phi_W + phi_P
u_prime = 0.5 * (u_Wprime + u_Pprime)
f_total = zeros( (M, 2) )
f_total[:,0] = 1. - 1./phi_total + u_prime - u_Wprime
f_total[:,1] = 1. - 1./phi_total + u_prime - u_Pprime
return f_total
I researched ways of solving nonlinear equations such as this one using python. I came across the scipy.optimize library with the several options for solvers http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy-0.13.0/reference/optimize.nonlin.html. I first tried to use the newton_krylov solver and received the following error message:
ValueError: Jacobian inversion yielded zero vector. This indicates a bug in the Jacobian approximation.
I also tried broyden1 solver and it never converged but simply stayed stagnant. Code for implementation of both below:
sol = newton_krylov(main, guess, verbose=1, f_tol=10e-7)
sol = broyden1(main, guess, verbose=1, f_tol=10e-7)
My initial guess is given below here:
## first guess of u_A(x)
u_P = zeros(M)
u_P[1] = -0.0001
u_P[M-1] = 0.0001
u_W = zeros(M)
u_W[1] = 0.0001
u_W[M-1] = -0.0001
u_total = zeros( (M,2) )
u_total[:,0] = u_P
u_total[:,1] = u_W
guess = u_total
Any help would be greatly appreciated!
Let std::vector<int> counts be a vector of positive integers and let N:=counts[0]+...+counts[counts.length()-1] be the the sum of vector components. Setting pi:=counts[i]/N, I compute the entropy using the classic formula H=p0*log2(p0)+...+pn*log2(pn).
The counts vector is changing --- counts are incremented --- and every 200 changes I recompute the entropy. After a quick google and stackoverflow search I couldn't find any method for incremental entropy computation. So the question: Is there an incremental method, like the ones for variance, for entropy computation?
EDIT: Motivation for this question was usage of such formulas for incremental information gain estimation in VFDT-like learners.
Resolved: See this mathoverflow post.
I derived update formulas and algorithms for entropy and Gini index and made the note available on arXiv. (The working version of the note is available here.) Also see this mathoverflow answer.
For the sake of convenience I am including simple Python code, demonstrating the derived formulas:
from math import log
from random import randint
# maps x to -x*log2(x) for x>0, and to 0 otherwise
h = lambda p: -p*log(p, 2) if p > 0 else 0
# update entropy if new example x comes in
def update(H, S, x):
new_S = S+x
return 1.0*H*S/new_S+h(1.0*x/new_S)+h(1.0*S/new_S)
# entropy of union of two samples with entropies H1 and H2
def update(H1, S1, H2, S2):
S = S1+S2
return 1.0*H1*S1/S+h(1.0*S1/S)+1.0*H2*S2/S+h(1.0*S2/S)
# compute entropy(L) using only `update' function
def test(L):
S = 0.0 # sum of the sample elements
H = 0.0 # sample entropy
for x in L:
H = update(H, S, x)
S = S+x
return H
# compute entropy using the classic equation
def entropy(L):
n = 1.0*sum(L)
return sum([h(x/n) for x in L])
# entry point
if __name__ == "__main__":
L = [randint(1,100) for k in range(100)]
M = [randint(100,1000) for k in range(100)]
L_ent = entropy(L)
L_sum = sum(L)
M_ent = entropy(M)
M_sum = sum(M)
T = L+M
print("Full = ", entropy(T))
print("Update = ", update(L_ent, L_sum, M_ent, M_sum))
You could re-compute the entropy by re-computing the counts and using some simple mathematical identity to simplify the entropy formula
K = count.size();
N = count[0] + ... + count[K - 1];
H = count[0]/N * log2(count[0]/N) + ... + count[K - 1]/N * log2(count[K - 1]/N)
= F * h
h = (count[0] * log2(count[0]) + ... + count[K - 1] * log2(count[K - 1]))
F = -1/(N * log2(N))
which holds because of log2(a / b) == log2(a) - log2(b)
Now given an old vector count of observations so far and another vector of new 200 observations called batch, you can do in C++11
void update_H(double& H, std::vector<int>& count, int& N, std::vector<int> const& batch)
{
N += batch.size();
auto F = -1/(N * log2(N));
for (auto b: batch)
++count[b];
H = F * std::accumulate(count.begin(), count.end(), 0.0, [](int elem) {
return elem * log2(elem);
});
}
Here I assume that you have encoded your observations as int. If you have some kind of symbol, you would need a symbol table std::map<Symbol, int>, and do a lookup for each symbol in batch before you update the count.
This seems the quickest way of writing some code for a general update. If you know that in every batch only few counts actually change, you can do as #migdal does and keep track of the changing counts, subtract their old contribution to the entropy and add the new contribution.