I can't really find any answer in the Modelica specification so ill ask you guys. The specification states that
A tool is free to solve equations, reorder expressions and to not evaluate expressions if their values do not influence the result (e.g. short-circuit evaluation of Boolean expressions). If-statements and if-expressions guarantee that their clauses are only evaluated if the appropriate condition is true, but relational operators generating state or time events will during continuous integration have the value from the most recent event.
If a numeric operation overflows the result is undefined. For literals it is recommended to automatically convert the number to another type with greater precision.
Now, I wonder, can the tool choose to evaluate an expression several time in an integrator step? For example (probably not an valid example, just to give you guys an idea of what I was wondering :) )
Real x;
equation
der(x) = -t;
Modelica.Utilities.Streams.print(String(time));
This will print the same time for several times, so I figured that there is some kind of iteration going on. But I would really like to have it confirmed by some source.
That is normal.
Variable step size solvers (like dassl) can go back
and forth in time to find the direction of the curve.
Also, if you have events more values can be generated
at the same time.
If you want to print time or values just at exact time instants you need when equations:
when sample(0, 1) then
Modelica.Utilities.Streams.print(String(time));
end when;
Read more in the Modelica Spec about sample.
Is also possible to use fixed step size solvers like Euler or so.
Related
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
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.
I am new to Cplex. I'm solving an integer programming problem, but I have a problem with objective function.
Problem is that I have some project, that have a due date D, and if project is tardy, than I have a tardiness penalty b, so it looks like b*(cn-D). Where cn is a real complection time of a project, and it is decision variable.
It must look like this
if (cn-D)>=0 then b*(cn-D)==0
I tried to use "if-then" constraint, but seems that it isn't working with decision variable.
I looked on question similar to this, but but could not find solution. Please, help me define correct objective function.
The standard way to model this is:
min sum(i, penalty(i)*Tardy(i))
Tardy(i) >= CompletionTime(i) - DueDate(i)
Tardy(i) >= 0
Tardy is a non-negative variable and can never become negative. The other quantities are:
penalty: a constant indicating the cost associated with job i being tardy one unit of time.
CompletionTime: a variable that holds the completion time of job i
DueDate: a constant with the due date of job i.
The above measures the sum. Sometimes we also want to measure the count: the number of jobs that are tardy. This is to prevent many jobs being tardy. In the most general case one would have both the sum and the count in the objective with different weights or penalties.
There is a virtually unlimited number of papers showing MIP formulations on scheduling models that involve tardiness. Instead of reinventing the wheel, it may be useful to consult some of them and see what others have done to formulate this.
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.
This is a theoretical question, so expect that many details here are not computable in practice or even in theory.
Let's say I have a string s that I want to compress. The result should be a self-extracting binary (can be x86 asm but can also be some other hypothetical Turing-complete low level language) which outputs s.
Now, we can easily iterate through all possible such binaries/programs, ordered by size. Let B_s be the sub-list of these binaries who output s (of course B_s is uncomputable).
As every set of positive integers must have a minimum, there must be a smallest program b_min_s in B_s
From s, I can also construct a canonical program b_cano_s which just outputs s in a trivial way. I.e. the size of b_cano_s will be in O(#s) -- if we think of ELF with data segments, we will even have #b_cano_s ~ #s.
Is there a set A of possible operations on the binaries which:
1 . Will preserve the output.
2a . Given b_cano_s, we can arrive somehow by operations from A at b_min_s.
(2b . Given b_cano_s, we can arrive at all programs in B_s.)
for all possible strings s.
The conditions 1+2a are weaker than the conditions 1+2b. Maybe, if there is such a set A, we will automatically have both, though. (Is that so?)
Does such a set A exists? I was thinking about some obvious operations, like searching for some repeated strings and shorten this. Or some of the other common compression methods. However, that probably is not enough to arrive at all programs B_s and my intention says also not necessarily at b_min_s for the same reason.
If it exists, can we express it, i.e. is it computable?
You should link your related previous questions.
2a. As noted, you can not determine b_min_s, because that results in a paradox. As a result, I don't think you can prove the operations in A are sufficient to reduce to it.
2b. You can brute force B_s, but this is an infinite set, and the procedure is non-terminating. However, for each program in B_s, you can calculate a manipulation from b_cano_s to B_s. However, that does not imply these possible operations will be meaningful. It seems operations like "delete characters in this range", "insert character at this position" qualify.