I was writing a program for finding roots for a class, and had finished and got it working perfectly. As I go to turn it in, I see the document requires the .cpp to compile using Visual Studio 2012 - so I try that out. I normally use Dev C++ - and I've come to find it allows me to compile "funky things" such as dynamically declaring arrays without using malloc or new operators.
So, after finding the error associated with how I wrongly defined my arrays - I tried to fix the problem using malloc, calloc, and new/delete and well - it kept giving me memory allocation errors. The whole 46981239487532-byte error.
Now, I tried to "return" the program to the way it used to be and now I can't even get that to work. I'm not even entirely sure how I set up the arrays to work in Dev C++ in the first place. Here the code:
#include <iostream>
#include <stdlib.h>
#include <math.h>
using namespace std;
float newton(float a, float b, float poly[],float n, float *fx, float *derfx);
float horner(float poly[], int n, float x, float *derx);
float bisection(float a, float b, float poly[], float n, float *fx);
int main(int argc, char *argv[])
{
float a, b, derr1 = 0, dummyvar = 0, fr1 = 0, fr0;
float constants[argc-3];
//float* constants = NULL;
//constants = new float[argc-3];
//constants = (float*)calloc(argc-3,sizeof(float));
//In order to get a and b from being a char to floating point, the following lines are used.
//The indexes are set relative to the size of argv array in order to allow for dynamically sized inputs. atof is a char to float converter.
a = atof(argv[argc-2]);
b = atof(argv[argc-1]);
//In order to get a easy to work with array for horners method,
//all of the values excluding the last two are put into a new floating point array
for (int i = 0; i <= argc - 3; i++){
constants[i] = atof(argv[i+1]);
}
bisection(a, b, constants, argc - 3, &fr0);
newton(a, b, constants, argc - 3, &fr1, &derr1);
cout << "f(a) = " << horner(constants,argc-3,a,&dummyvar);
cout << ", f(b) = " << horner(constants,argc-3,b,&dummyvar);
cout << ", f(Bisection Root) = " << fr0;
cout << ", f(Newton Root) = "<<fr1<<", f'(Newton Root) = "<<derr1<<endl;
return 0;
}
// Poly[] is the polynomial constants, n is the number of degrees of the polynomial (the size of poly[]), x is the value of the function we want the solution for.
float horner(float poly[], int n, float x, float *derx)
{
float fx[2] = {0, 0};
fx[0] = poly[0]; // Initialize fx to the largest degree constant.
float derconstant[n];
//float* derconstant = NULL;
//derconstant = new float[n];
//derconstant = (float*)calloc(n,sizeof(float));
derconstant[0] = poly[0];
// Each term is multiplied by the last by X, then you add the next poly constant. The end result is the function at X.
for (int i = 1; i < n; i++){
fx[0] = fx[0]*x + poly[i];
// Each itteration has the constant saved to form the derivative function, which is evaluated in the next for loop.
derconstant[i]=fx[0];
}
// The same method is used to calculate the derivative at X, only using n-1 instead of n.
fx[1] = derconstant[0]; // Initialize fx[1] to the largest derivative degree constant.
for (int i = 1; i < n - 1; i++){
fx[1] = fx[1]*x + derconstant[i];
}
*derx = fx[1];
return fx[0];
}
float bisection(float a, float b, float poly[], float n, float *fx)
{
float r0 =0, count0 = 0;
float c = (a + b)/2; // c is the midpoint from a to b
float fc, fa, fb;
int rootfound = 0;
float *derx;
derx = 0; // Needs to be defined so that my method for horner's method will work for bisection.
fa = horner(poly, n, a, derx); // The following three lines use horner's method to get fa,fb, and fc.
fb = horner(poly, n, b, derx);
fc = horner(poly, n, c, derx);
while ((count0 <= 100000) || (rootfound == 0)) { // The algorithm has a limit of 1000 itterations to solve the root.
if (count0 <= 100000) {
count0++;
if ((c == r0) && (fabs(fc) <= 0.0001)) {
rootfound=1;
cout << "Bisection Root: " << r0 << endl;
cout << "Iterations: " << count0+1 << endl;
*fx = fc;
break;
}
else
{
if (((fc > 0) && (fb > 0)) || ((fc < 0) && (fb < 0))) { // Checks if fb and fc are the same sign.
b = c; // If fc and fb have the same sign, thenb "moves" to c.
r0 = c; // Sets the current root approximation to the last c value.
c = (a + b)/2; // c is recalculated.
}
else
{
a=c; // Shift a to c for next itteration.
r0=c; // Sets the current root approximation to the last c value.
c=(a+b)/2; // Calculate next c for next itteration.
}
fa = horner(poly, n, a, derx); // The following three send the new a,b,and c values to horner's method for recalculation.
fb = horner(poly, n, b, derx);
fc = horner(poly, n, c, derx);
}
}
else
{
cout << "Bisection Method could not find root within 100000 itterations" << endl;
break;
}
}
return 0;
}
float newton(float a, float b, float poly[],float n, float *fx, float *derfx){
float x0, x1;
int rootfound1 = 1, count1 = 0;
x0 = (a + b)/2;
x1 = x0;
float fx0, derfx0;
fx0 = horner(poly, n, x0, &derfx0);
while ((count1 <= 100000) || (rootfound1 == 0)) {
count1++;
if (count1 <= 100000) {
if ((fabs(fx0) <= 0.0001)) {
rootfound1 = 1;
cout << "Newtons Root: " << x1 << endl;
cout << "Iterations: " << count1 << endl;
break;
}
else
{
x1 = x0 - (fx0/derfx0);
x0 = x1;
fx0 = horner(poly, n, x0, &derfx0);
*derfx = derfx0;
*fx = fx0;
}
}
else
{
cout << "Newtons Method could not find a root within 100000 itterations" << endl;
break;
}
}
return 0;
}
So I've spent the past several hours trying to sort this out, and ultimately, I've given in to asking.Everywhere I look has just said to define as
float* constants = NULL;
constants = new float[size];
but this keeps crashing my programs - presumably from allocating too much memory somehow. I've commented out the things I've tried in various ways and combonations. If you want a more tl;dr to the "trouble spots", they are at the very beginning of the main and horner functions.
Here is one issue, in main you allocate space for argc-3 floats (in various ways) for constants but your code in the loop writes past the end of the array.
Change:
for( int i = 0; i<=argc-3; i++){
to
for( int i = 0; i<argc-3; i++){
That alone could be enough to cause your allocation errors.
Edit: Also note if you allocate space for something using new, you need to delete it with delete, otherwise you will continue to use up memory and possibly run out (especially if you do it in a loop of 100,000).
Edit 2: As Galik mentions below, because you are using derconstant = new float[n] to allocate the memory, you need to use delete [] derconstant to free the memory. This is important when you start allocating space for class objects as the delete [] form will call the destructor of each element in the array.
Related
2nd task:
For a function f : R^n → R the gradient at a point ~x ∈ R^n is to be calculated:
- Implement a function
CMyVector gradient(CMyVector x, double (*function)(CMyVector x)),
which is given in the first parameter the location ~x and in the second parameter the function f as function pointer in the second parameter, and which calculates the gradient ~g = grad f(~x) numerically
by
gi = f(x1, . . . , xi-1, xi + h, xi+1 . . . , xn) - f(x1, . . . , xn)/h
to fixed h = 10^-8.
My currently written program:
Header
#pragma once
#include <vector>
#include <math.h>
class CMyVektor
{
private:
/* data */
int Dimension = 0;
std::vector<double>Vector;
public:
CMyVektor();
~CMyVektor();
//Public Method
void set_Dimension(int Dimension /* Aktuelle Dim*/);
void set_specified_Value(int index, int Value);
double get_specified_Value(int key);
int get_Vector_Dimension();
int get_length_Vektor();
double& operator [](int index);
string umwandlung()
};
CMyVektor::CMyVektor(/* args */)
{
Vector.resize(0, 0);
}
CMyVektor::~CMyVektor()
{
for (size_t i = 0; i < Vector.size(); i++)
{
delete Vector[i];
}
}
void CMyVektor::set_Dimension(int Dimension /* Aktuelle Dim*/)
{
Vector.resize(Dimension);
};
void CMyVektor::set_specified_Value(int index, int Value)
{
if (Vector.empty())
{
Vector.push_back(Value);
}
else {
Vector[index] = Value;
}
};
double CMyVektor::get_specified_Value(int key)
{
// vom intervall anfang - ende des Vectors
for (unsigned i = 0; i < Vector.size(); i++)
{
if (Vector[i] == key) {
return Vector[i];
}
}
};
int CMyVektor::get_Vector_Dimension()
{
return Vector.size();
};
// Berechnet den Betrag "länge" eines Vectors.
int CMyVektor::get_length_Vektor()
{
int length = 0;
for (size_t i = 0; i < Vector.size(); i++)
{
length += Vector[i]^2
}
return sqrt(length);
}
// [] Operator überladen
double& CMyVektor::operator [](int index)
{
return Vector[index];
}
main.cpp
#include <iostream>
#include "ClassVektor.h"
using namespace std;
CMyVektor operator+(CMyVektor a, CMyVektor b);
CMyVektor operator*(double lambda, CMyVektor a);
CMyVektor gradient(CMyVektor x, double (*funktion)(CMyVektor x));
int main() {
CMyVektor V1;
CMyVektor V2;
CMyVektor C;
C.set_Dimension(V1.get_length_Vector());
C= V1 + V2;
std::cout << "Addition : "<< "(";;
for (int i = 0; i < C.get_length_Vector(); i++)
{
std::cout << C[i] << " ";
}
std::cout << ")" << endl;
C = lamda * C;
std::cout << "Skalarprodukt: "<< C[0]<< " ";
}
// Vector Addition
CMyVektor operator+(CMyVektor a, CMyVektor b)
{
int ai = 0, bi = 0;
int counter = 0;
CMyVektor c;
c.set_Dimension(a.get_length_Vector());
// Wenn Dimension Gleich dann addition
if (a.get_length_Vector() == b.get_length_Vector())
{
while (counter < a.get_length_Vector())
{
c[counter] = a[ai] + b[bi];
counter++;
}
return c;
}
}
//Berechnet das Skalarprodukt
CMyVektor operator*(double lambda, CMyVektor a)
{
CMyVektor c;
c.set_Dimension(1);
for (unsigned i = 0; i < a.get_length_Vector(); i++)
{
c[0] += lambda * a[i];
}
return c;
}
/*
* Differenzenquotient : (F(x0+h)+F'(x0)) / h
* Erster Parameter die Stelle X - Zweiter Parameter die Funktion
* Bestimmt numerisch den Gradienten.
*/
CMyVektor gradient(CMyVektor x, double (*funktion)(CMyVektor x))
{
}
My problem now is that I don't quite know how to deal with the
CMyVector gradient(CMyVector x, double (*function)(CMyVector x))
function and how to define a function that corresponds to it.
I hope that it is enough information. Many thanks.
The function parameter is the f in the difference formula. It takes a CMyVector parameter x and returns a double value. You need to supply a function parameter name. I'll assume func for now.
I don't see a parameter for h. Are you going to pass a single small value into the gradient function or assume a constant?
The parameter x is a vector. Will you add a constant h to each element?
This function specification is a mess.
Function returns a double. How do you plan to turn that into a vector?
No wonder you're confused. I am.
Are you trying to do something like this?
You are given a function signature
CMyVector gradient(CMyVector x, double (*function)(CMyVector x))
Without knowing the exact definition I will assume, that at least the basic numerical vector operations are defined. That means, that the following statements compile:
CMyVector x {2.,5.,7.};
CMyVector y {1.,7.,4.};
CMyVector z {0.,0.,0.};
double a = 0.;
// vector addition and assigment
z = x + y;
// vector scalar multiplication and division
z = z * a;
z = x / 0.1;
Also we need to know the dimension of the CMyVector class. I assumed and will continue to do so that it is three dimensional.
The next step is to understand the function signature. You get two parameters. The first one denotes the point, at which you are supposed to calculate the gradient. The second is a pointer to the function f in your formula. You do not know it, but can call it on a vector from within your gradient function definition. That means, inside of the definition you can do something like
double f_at_x = function(x);
and the f_at_x will hold the value f(x) after that operation.
Armed with this, we can try to implement the formula, that you mentioned in the question title:
CMyVector gradient(CMyVector x, double (*function)(CMyVector x)) {
double h = 0.001;
// calculate first element of the gradient
CMyVector e1 {1.0, 0.0, 0.0};
double result1 = ( function(x + e1*h) - function(x) )/h;
// calculate second element of the gradient
CMyVector e2 {0.0, 1.0, 0.0};
double result2 = ( function(x + e2*h) - function(x) )/h;
// calculate third element of the gradient
CMyVector e3 {0.0, 0.0, 1.0};
double result3 = ( function(x + e3*h) - function(x) )/h;
// return the result
return CMyVector {result1, result2, result3};
}
There are several thing worth to mention in this code. First and most important I have chosen h = 0.001. This may like a very arbitrary choice, but the choice of the step size will very much impact the precision of your result. You can find a whole lot of discussion about that topic here. I took the same value that according to that wikipedia page a lot of handheld calculators use internally. That might not be the best choice for the floating point precision of your processor, but should be a fair one to start with.
Secondly the code looks very ugly for an advanced programmer. We are doing almost the same thing for each of the three dimensions. Ususally you would like to do that in a for loop. The exact way of how this is done depends on how the CMyVector type is defined.
Since the CMyVektor is just rewritting the valarray container, I will directly use the valarray:
#include <iostream>
#include <valarray>
using namespace std;
using CMyVektor = valarray<double>;
CMyVektor gradient(CMyVektor x, double (*funktion)(CMyVektor x));
const double h = 0.00000001;
int main()
{
// sum(x_i^2 + x_i)--> gradient: 2*x_i + 1
auto fun = [](CMyVektor x) {return (x*x + x).sum();};
CMyVektor d = gradient(CMyVektor{1,2,3,4,5}, fun);
for (auto i: d) cout << i<<' ';
return 0;
}
CMyVektor gradient(CMyVektor x, double (*funktion)(CMyVektor x)){
CMyVektor grads(x.size());
CMyVektor pos(x.size());
for (int i = 0; i<x.size(); i++){
pos[i] = 1;
grads[i] = (funktion(x + h * pos) - funktion(x))/ h;
pos[i] = 0;
}
return grads;
}
The prints out 3 5 7 9 11 which is what is expected from the given function and the given location
When I declare an array to store the Y values of each coordinate, define its values then use each of the element values to send into a rounding function, i obtain the error 'Run-Time Check Failure #2 - Stack around the variable 'Yarray; was corrupted. The output is mostly what is expected although i'm wondering why this is happening and if i can mitigate it, cheers.
void EquationElement::getPolynomial(int * values)
{
//Takes in coefficients to calculate Y values for a polynomial//
double size = 40;
double step = 1;
int Yarray[40];
int third = *values;
int second = *(values + 1);
int first = *(values + 2);
int constant = *(values + 3);
double x, Yvalue;
for (int i = 0; i < size + size + 1; ++i) {
x = (i - (size));
x = x * step;
double Y = (third *(x*x*x)) + (second *(x*x)) + (first * (x))
Yvalue = Y / step;
Yarray[i] = int(round(Yvalue)); //<-MAIN ISSUE HERE?//
cout << Yarray[i] << endl;
}
}
double EquationElement::round(double number)
{
return number < 0.0 ? ceil(number - 0.5) : floor(number + 0.5);
// if n<0 then ceil(n-0.5) else if >0 floor(n+0.5) ceil to round up floor to round down
}
// values could be null, you should check that
// if instead of int* values, you took std::vector<int>& values
// You know besides the values, the quantity of them
void EquationElement::getPolynomial(const int* values)
{
//Takes in coefficients to calculate Y values for a polynomial//
static const int size = 40; // No reason for size to be double
static const int step = 1; // No reason for step to be double
int Yarray[2*size+1]{}; // 40 will not do {} makes them initialized to zero with C++11 onwards
int third = values[0];
int second = values[1]; // avoid pointer arithmetic
int first = values[2]; // [] will work with std::vector and is clearer
int constant = values[3]; // Values should point at least to 4 numbers; responsability goes to caller
for (int i = 0; i < 2*size + 1; ++i) {
double x = (i - (size)) * step; // x goes from -40 to 40
double Y = (third *(x*x*x)) + (second *(x*x)) + (first * (x)) + constant;
// Seems unnatural that x^1 is values and x^3 is values+2, being constant at values+3
double Yvalue= Y / step; // as x and Yvalue will not be used outside the loop, no need to declare them there
Yarray[i] = int(round(Yvalue)); //<-MAIN ISSUE HERE?//
// Yep, big issue, i goes from 0 to size*2; you need size+size+1 elements
cout << Yarray[i] << endl;
}
}
Instead of
void EquationElement::getPolynomial(const int* values)
You could also declare
void EquationElement::getPolynomial(const int (&values)[4])
Which means that now you need to call it with a pointer to 4 elements; no more and no less.
Also, with std::vector:
void EquationElement::getPolynomial(const std::vector<int>& values)
{
//Takes in coefficients to calculate Y values for a polynomial//
static const int size = 40; // No reason for size to be double
static const int step = 1; // No reason for step to be double
std::vector<int> Yarray;
Yarray.reserve(2*size+1); // This is just optimization. Yarran *Can* grow above this limit.
int third = values[0];
int second = values[1]; // avoid pointer arithmetic
int first = values[2]; // [] will work with std::vector and is clearer
int constant = values[3]; // Values should point at least to 4 numbers; responsability goes to caller
for (int i = 0; i < 2*size + 1; ++i) {
double x = (i - (size)) * step; // x goes from -40 to 40
double Y = (third *(x*x*x)) + (second *(x*x)) + (first * (x)) + constant;
// Seems unnatural that x^1 is values and x^3 is values+2, being constant at values+3
double Yvalue= Y / step; // as x and Yvalue will not be used outside the loop, no need to declare them there
Yarray.push_back(int(round(Yvalue)));
cout << Yarray.back() << endl;
}
}
I am trying to compute the Taylor series expansion for e^x at x_0 = 1. I am having a very hard time understanding what it really is I am looking for. I am pretty sure I am trying to find a decimal approximation for when e^x when x_0 = 1 is. However, when I run this code when x_0 is = 0, I get the wrong output. Which leads me to believe that I am computing this incorrectly.
Here is my class e.hpp
#ifndef E_HPP
#define E_HPP
class E
{
public:
int factorial(int n);
double computeE();
private:
int fact = 1;
int x_0 = 1;
int x = 1;
int N = 10;
double e = 2.718;
double sum = 0.0;
};
Here is my e.cpp
#include "e.hpp"
#include <cmath>
#include <iostream>
int E::factorial(int n)
{
if(n == 0) return 1;
for(int i = 1; i <= n; ++i)
{
fact = fact * i;
}
return fact;
}
double E::computeE()
{
sum = std::pow(e,x_0);
for(int i = 1; i < N; ++i)
{
sum += ((std::pow(x-x_0,i))/factorial(i));
}
return e * sum;
}
In main.cpp
#include "e.hpp"
#include <iostream>
#include <cmath>
int main()
{
E a;
std::cout << "E calculated at x_0 = 1: " << a.computeE() << std::endl;
std::cout << "E Calculated with std::exp: " << std::exp(1) << std::endl;
}
Output:
E calculated at x_0 = 1: 7.38752
E calculated with std::exp: 2.71828
When I change to x_0 = 0.
E calculated at x_0 = 0: 7.03102
E calculated with std::exp: 2.71828
What am I doing wrong? Am I implementing the Taylor Series incorrectly? Is my logic incorrect somewhere?
Yeah, your logic is incorrect somewhere.
Like Dan says, you have to reset fact to 1 each time you calculate the factorial. You might even make it local to the factorial function.
In the return statement of computeE you are multiplying the sum by e, which you do not need to do. The sum is already the taylor approximation of e^x.
The taylor series for e^x about 0 is sum _i=0 ^i=infinity (x^i / i!), so x_0 should indeed be 0 in your program.
Technically your computeE computes the right value for sum when you have x_0=0, but it's kind of strange. The taylor series starts at i=0, but you start the loop with i=1. However, the first term of the taylor series is x^0 / 0! = 1 and you initialize sum to std::pow(e, x_0) = std::pow(e, 0) = 1 so it works out mathematically.
(Your computeE function also computed the right value for sum when you had x_0 = 1. You initialized sum to std::pow(e, 1) = e, and then the for loop didn't change its value at all because x - x_0 = 0.)
However, as I said, in either case you don't need to multiply it by e in the return statement.
I would change the computeE code to this:
double E::computeE()
{
sum = 0;
for(int i = 0; i < N; ++i)
{
sum += ((std::pow(x-x_0,i))/factorial(i));
cout << sum << endl;
}
return sum;
}
and set x_0 = 0.
"fact" must be reset to 1 each time you calculate factorial. It should be a local variable instead of a class variable.
When "fact" is a class varable, and you let "factorial" change it to, say 6, that means that it will have the vaule 6 when you call "factorial" a second time. And this will only get worse. Remove your declaration of "fact" and use this instead:
int E::factorial(int n)
{
int fact = 1;
if(n == 0) return 1;
for(int i = 1; i <= n; ++i)
{
fact = fact * i;
}
return fact;
}
Write less code.
Don't use factorial.
Here it is in Java. You should have no trouble converting this to C++:
/**
* #link https://stackoverflow.com/questions/46148579/trying-to-compute-ex-when-x-0-1
* #link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series
*/
public class TaylorSeries {
private static final int DEFAULT_NUM_TERMS = 50;
public static void main(String[] args) {
int xmax = (args.length > 0) ? Integer.valueOf(args[0]) : 10;
for (int i = 0; i < xmax; ++i) {
System.out.println(String.format("x: %10.5f series exp(x): %10.5f function exp(x): %10.5f", (double)i, exp(i), Math.exp(i)));
}
}
public static double exp(double x) {
return exp(DEFAULT_NUM_TERMS, x);
}
// This is the Taylor series for exp that you want to port to C++
public static double exp(int n, double x) {
double value = 1.0;
double term = 1.0;
for (int i = 1; i <= n; ++i) {
term *= x/i;
value += term;
}
return value;
}
}
The code below is my source code that was part of a lab test that I recently took. I was counted off points because the program did not properly display the line and color it as it was supposed to. I found this incredible, as I had tested it for 3 points (to draw two lines), in order to save time on a timed test, and it works perfectly. The example input for the test was for 5 points (four lines). When I downloaded my code and tested it with 5 points, the graphical display does indeed go haywire, drawing seemingly random lines. I have debugged it, and after the third iteration (fourth time through the loop) of the first for loop where the program is collecting the x and y coordinates from the user, whatever is entered for the x coordinate value appears to be overwriting the loop control variableno_points[0], for no apparent reason. My thoughts are that the loop control variable, and the fourth x coordinate value are sharing an address somehow. As I said, I have already taken the test and received my grade, so I am not looking for a handout to cheat on anything. I simply am not able to understand why this occurring. Any help would be appreciated.
#include <iostream>
#include "graph1.h"
#include <cstdlib>
using namespace std;
// declaring prototypes
void getData(int* no_points, int* x, int* y, int* r, int* g, int* b);
void drawPolyLine(int* objects, int*x, int* y, int* no_points);
void colorPolyLine(int* objects, int* no_points, int r, int g, int b);
// declaring main
int main()
{
int no_points = NULL;
int x = NULL;
int y = NULL;
int r = NULL;
int g = NULL;
int b = NULL;
int objects[50] = {};
int again = 1;
do
{
displayGraphics();
clearGraphics();
getData(&no_points, &x, &y, &r, &g, &b);
drawPolyLine(objects, &x, &y, &no_points);
colorPolyLine(objects, &no_points, r, g, b);
cout << "Please enter a 0 to exit the program..." << endl;
cin >> again;
} while (again == 1);
return 0;
}
// declaring functions
void getData(int* no_points, int* x, int* y, int* r, int* g, int* b)
{
cout << "Enter # of points: " << endl;
cin >> *no_points;
cout << "Number of points entered is " << *no_points << endl;
cout << "Enter r/g/b colors..." << endl;
do
{
cout << "Enter a red value between 0 and 255 " << endl;
cin >> *r;
} while (*r < 0 || *r > 255);
do
{
cout << "Enter a green value between 0 and 255 " << endl;
cin >> *g;
} while (*g < 0 || *g > 255);
do
{
cout << "Enter a blue value between 0 and 255 " << endl;
cin >> *b;
} while (*b < 0 || *b > 255);
for (int i = 0; i < no_points[0]; i++)
{
cout << "Enter the x/y coord for Point #" << i + 1 << endl;
cin >> x[i]; cin >> y[i];
}
}
void drawPolyLine(int* objects, int* x, int* y, int* no_points)
{
for (int i = 0; i < no_points[0] -1; i++)
objects[i] = drawLine((x[i]), (y[i]), (x[i + 1]), (y[i + 1]), 3);
}
void colorPolyLine(int* objects, int* no_points, int r, int g, int b)
{
for (int i = 0; i < no_points[0] - 1; i++)
{
setColor(objects[i], r, g, b);
}
}
the x coordinate value appears to be overwriting the loop control variable "no_points[0]", for no apparent reason.
Well, for no reason that is apparent to you anyway.
In your main program you declare all your variables no_points, x, y, etc. as scalars, not arrays. That is, each variable accommodates one int. Your other functions treat the pointers to those variables (that you provide as arguments) as if they pointed into arrays at least no_points elements in length. Accessing elements past the first (at index 0) produces undefined behavior.
Although one cannot actually predict the outcome of undefined behavior from the code and the standard, memory corruption is a common outcome of the kind of incorrect code you present.
Implementing this simple root-finding algorithm.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Durand%E2%80%93Kerner_method
I cannot for the life of me figure out what's wrong with my implementation. The roots keep blowing up and no sign of convergence. Any suggestions?
Thanks.
#include <iostream>
#include <complex>
using namespace std;
typedef complex<double> dcmplx;
dcmplx f(dcmplx x)
{
// the function we are interested in
double a4 = 3;
double a3 = -3;
double a2 = 1;
double a1 = 0;
double a0 = 100;
return a4 * pow(x,4) + a3 * pow(x,3) + a2 * pow(x,2) + a1 * x + a0;
}
int main()
{
dcmplx p(.9,2);
dcmplx q(.1, .5);
dcmplx r(.7,1);
dcmplx s(.3, .5);
dcmplx p0, q0, r0, s0;
int max_iterations = 20;
bool done = false;
int i=0;
while (i<max_iterations && done == false)
{
p0 = p;
q0 = q;
r0 = r;
s0 = s;
p = p0 - f(p0)/((p0-q0)*(p0-r0)*(p0-s0));
q = q0 - f(q0)/((q0-p)*(q0-r0)*(q0-s0));
r = r0 - f(r0)/((r0-p)*(r0-q)*(r0-s0));
s = s0 - f(s0)/((s0-p)*(s0-q)*(s0-r));
// if convergence within small epsilon, declare done
if (abs(p-p0)<1e-5 && abs(q-q0)<1e-5 && abs(r-r0)<1e-5 && abs(s-s0)<1e-5)
done = true;
i++;
}
cout<<"roots are :\n";
cout << p << "\n";
cout << q << "\n";
cout << r << "\n";
cout << s << "\n";
cout << "number steps taken: "<< i << endl;
return 0;
}
A half year late: The solution to the enigma is that the denominator should be an approximation of the derivative of the polynomial, and thus needs to contain the leading coefficient a4 as factor.
Alternatively, one can divide the polynomial value by a4 in the return statement, so that the polynomial is effectively normed, i.e., has leading coefficient 1.
Note that the example code in wikipedia by Bo Jacoby is the Seidel-type variant of the method, the classical formulation is the Jordan-like method where all new approximations are simultaneously computed from the old approximation. Seidel can have faster convergence than the order 2 that the formulation as a multidimensional Newton method provides for Jacobi.
However, for large degrees Jacobi can be accelerated using fast polynomial multiplication algorithms for the required multi-point evaluations of polynomial values and the products in the denominators.
Ah, the problem was that the coefficients of an N-degree polynomial have to be specified as
1*x^N + a*x^(N-1) + b*x^(N-2) ... etc + z;
where 1 is the coefficient of the largest degree term. Otherwise the first root will never converge.
You haven't implemented for formulae correctly. For instance
s = s0 - f(s0)/((s0-p0)*(s0-q0)*(s0-r0));
should be
s = s0 - f(s0)/((s0-p)*(s0-q)*(s0-r));
Look again at the wiki article