I am new to sympy and in the process of learning it. I was browsing through the documentation and questions in stack exchange regarding symbolically solving a system of differential equations with initial conditions using sympy.
I have a simple system of ODE-s
( dV/dt ) = -( 1 / RC ) * ( V(t) ) + I(t)/C
( dI/dt ) = -( R1 / L ) * ( I(t) ) - ( 1 / L) * V(t) + Vs/L
with initial conditions V(0) = V0 and I(0) = I0
I browsed through a lot of questions in stack exchange and not successful in finding an appropriate answer.
It would be of great help if somebody can show me a syntax to enter a system of coupled differential equations with initial conditions.
System of ODEs support is only in the development version of SymPy. It will be added in 0.7.6. The syntax would be
V, I = symbols("V I", cls=Function)
RC, t, C, Vs, L, R1, V0, I0 = symbols("RC t C Vs L R1 V0 I0")
system = [Eq(V(t).diff(t), -1/RC*V(t) + I(t)/C), Eq(I(t).diff(t), -R1/L*I(t) - 1/L*V(t) + Vs/L)]
ics = {V(0): V0, I(0): I0}
dsolve(system, [V(t), I(t)], ics=ics)
It seems that there is a bug that prevents this from working in the current SymPy master, unless I mistyped something (https://github.com/sympy/sympy/issues/8193).
Related
I'm trying to implement the Runge Kutta method in Fortran and am facing a convergence problem. I don't know how much of the code I should show, so I'll describe the problem in detail, and please guide me as to what I should add/remove to/from the post to make it answerable.
I have a 6-dimensional vector of position and velocity of a ball, and a corresponding system of diff. eqs. that describe the equations of motions, from which I want to calculate the trajectory of the ball, and compare results for different orders of the RK method.
Let's focus on 3rd order RK. The model I use is implemented as follows:
k1 = h * f(vec_old,omega,phi)
k2 = h * f(vec_old + 0.5d0 * k1,omega,phi)
k3 = h * f(vec_old + 2d0 * k2 - k1,omega,phi)
vec = vec_old + (k1 + 4d0 * k2 + k3) / 6d0
Where f is the function that constitutes the equations of motion (or equivalently the RHS of my system of diff. eqs). Note that f is time independent, therefore has only 1 argument. h takes the role of a small time step dt.
If we wish to calculate the trajectory of the ball for a finite time total_time, and allow for a total error of epsilon, then we need to ensure each step takes a proportional fraction of the error. For the first step, I then did the following:
vec1 = solve(3,vec_old,h,omega,phi)
vec2 = solve(3,vec_old,h/2d0,omega,phi)
do while (maxval((/(abs(vec1(i) - vec2(i)),i=1,6)/)) > eps * h / (tot_time - current_time))
h = h / 2d0
vec1 = solve(3,vec_old,h,omega,phi)
vec2 = solve(3,vec_old,h/2d0,omega,phi)
end do
vec = (8d0/7d0) * vec2 - (1d0/7d0) * vec1
Where solve(3,vec_old,h,omega,phi) is the function that calculates the single RK step described above. 3 denotes the RK order we are using, vec_old is the current state of the position-velocity vector, h, h/2d0 both represent the time step being used, and omega,phi are just some extra parameters for f. Finally, for the first step we set current_time = 0d0.
The point is that if we use a 3rd order RK, we should have an error in $O(h^3)$, and thus fall off faster than linearly in h. Therefore, we should expect the while loop to eventually come to a halt for small enough h.
My problem is that the loop doesn't converge, and not even close - the ratio
maxval(...) / eps * (...)
remains pretty much constant, all the way until eps * h / (tot_time - current_time)) becomes zero due to finite precision.
For completeness, this is my definition for f:
function f(vec_old,omega,phi) result(vec)
real(8),intent(in) :: vec_old(6),omega,phi
real(8) :: vec(6)
real(8) :: v,Fv
v = sqrt(vec_old(4)**2+vec_old(5)**2+vec_old(6)**2)
Fv = 0.0039d0 + 0.0058d0 / (1d0 + exp((v-35d0)/5d0))
vec(1) = vec_old(4)
vec(2) = vec_old(5)
vec(3) = vec_old(6)
vec(4) = -Fv * v * vec_old(4) + 4.1d-4 * omega * (vec_old(6)*sin(phi) - vec_old(5)*cos(phi))
vec(5) = -Fv * v * vec_old(5) + 4.1d-4 * omega * vec_old(4)*cos(phi)
vec(6) = -Fv * v * vec_old(6) - 4.1d-4 * omega * vec_old(4)*sin(phi) - 9.8d0
end function f
Does anyone have any idea as to why the while loop doesn't converge?
If anything else is needed (output, other pieces of code etc.) please tell me and I'll add it. Also, if trimming is required, I'll cut whatever would be considered unnecessary. Thanks!
To compute the step error using the half step method, you need to compute the approximation at t+h in both cases, which means two steps with step size h/2. As it is now you compare the approximation at t+h to the approximation at t+h/2 which gives you an error of size f(vec(t+h/2))*h/2.
Thus change to a 3-step procedure
vec1 = solve(3,vec_old,h,omega,phi)
vec2 = solve(3,vec_old,h/2d0,omega,phi)
vec2 = solve(3,vec2 ,h/2d0,omega,phi)
in both locations, the difference of vec2-vec1 should then be of order h^4.
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 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))
I'm trying to do Logistic Regression from Coursera in Julia, but it doesn't work.
The Julia code to calculate the Gradient:
sigmoid(z) = 1 / (1 + e ^ -z)
hypotesis(theta, x) = sigmoid(scalar(theta' * x))
function gradient(theta, x, y)
(m, n) = size(x)
h = [hypotesis(theta, x[i,:]') for i in 1:m]
g = Array(Float64, n, 1)
for j in 1:n
g[j] = sum([(h[i] - y[i]) * x[i, j] for i in 1:m])
end
g
end
If this gradient used it produces the wrong results. Can't figure out why, the code seems like the right one.
The full Julia script. In this script the optimal Theta calculated using my Gradient Descent implementation and using the built-in Optim package, and the results are different.
The gradient is correct (up to a scalar multiple, as #roygvib points out). The problem is with the gradient descent.
If you look at the values of the cost function during your gradient descent, you will see a lot of NaN,
which probably come from the exponential:
lowering the step size (e.g., to 1e-5) will avoid the overflow,
but you will have to increase the number of iterations a lot (perhaps to 10_000_000).
A better (faster) solution would be to let the step size vary.
For instance, one could multiply the step size by 1.1
if the cost function improves after a step
(the optimum still looks far away in this direction: we can go faster),
and divide it by 2 if it does not (we went too fast and ended up past the minimum).
One could also do a line search in the direction of the gradient to find the best step size
(but this is time-consuming and can be replaced by approximations, e.g., Armijo's rule).
Rescaling the predictive variables also helps.
I tried comparing gradient() in the OP's code with numerical derivative of cost_j() (which is the objective function of minimization) using the following routine
function grad_num( theta, x, y )
g = zeros( 3 )
eps = 1.0e-6
disp = zeros( 3 )
for k = 1:3
disp[:] = theta[:]
disp[ k ]= theta[ k ] + eps
plus = cost_j( disp, x, y )
disp[ k ]= theta[ k ] - eps
minus = cost_j( disp, x, y )
g[ k ] = ( plus - minus ) / ( 2.0 * eps )
end
return g
end
But the gradient values obtained from the two routines do no seem to agree very well (at least for the initial stage of minimization)... So I manually derived the gradient of cost_j( theta, x, y ), from which it seems that the division by m is missing:
#/ OP's code
# g[j] = sum( [ (h[i] - y[i]) * x[i, j] for i in 1:m ] )
#/ modified code
g[j] = sum( [ (h[i] - y[i]) * x[i, j] for i in 1:m ] ) / m
Because I am not very sure if the above code and expression are really correct, could you check them by yourself...?
But in fact, regardless of whether I use the original or corrected gradients, the program converges to the same minimum value (0.2034977016, almost the same as obtained from Optim), because the two gradients differ only by a multiplicative factor! Because the convergence was very slow, I also modified the stepsize alpha adaptively following the suggestion by Vincent (here I used more moderate values for acceleration/deceleration):
function gradient_descent(x, y, theta, alpha, n_iterations)
...
c = cost_j( theta, x, y )
for i = 1:n_iterations
c_prev = c
c = cost_j( theta, x, y )
if c - c_prev < 0.0
alpha *= 1.01
else
alpha /= 1.05
end
theta[:] = theta - alpha * gradient(theta, x, y)
end
...
end
and called this routine as
optimal_theta = gradient_descent( x, y, [0 0 0]', 1.5e-3, 10^7 )[ 1 ]
The variation of cost_j versus iteration steps is plotted below.
I am trying to solve for the roots of a function in Stata. There is the "polyeval" command under Mata, but I am not sure how to apply it here. It seems to me as if under polyeval functions must follow a very clear structure of x^2 + x + c.
I would like to find out more about how to use Stata to solve this type of problem in general. But here is my current one, if that provides some idea of what I am working with.
I am currently trying to solve the Black (1976) American Options pricing model:
C = e^{-rt} [ F N(d1) - E N(d2)]
where,
d1 = [ln(F/E) + 1/2 simga^2 t] / [sigma sqrt{t}]
d2 = d1 - sigma sqrt{t}
where C is the price of call option, t is time to expiration, r is interest rate, F is current futures price of contract, E is strike price, sigma is the annualized standard deviation of the futures contract. N(d1) and N(d2) are cumulative normal probability functions. All variables are known except for sigma.
As an aside, this seems to be really easy to do in R:
fun <- function(sigma) exp(-int.rate* T) * (futures * pnorm((log(futures/Strike)+ sigma^2 * T/2) / sigma * sqrt(T),0,1)- Strike * pnorm((log(futures/Strike)+ sigma^2 * T/2) / sigma * sqrt(T)- sigma * sqrt(T),0,1) ) - Option
uni <- uniroot(fun, c(0, 1), tol = 0.001 )
uni$root
Does anyone have any ideas/pointers on how to use Stata to solve this type of function?