I want to evaluate a matrix that has a function named alpha. When I take the derivative of alpha, I would like the result to give me an alpha'
Example: if I have sin(alpha) I want to get cos(alpha)alpha' but throughout the matrix.
It is quite unclear what you mean by stating that you have a "function" in Maple, of which you intend to take the derivative.
That could mean some expression depending upon a name such as t, with respect to which you intend on differentiating using Maple's diff command. And such an expression may be assigned to alpha, or it may contain the function call alpha(t).
Or perhaps you wish to treat alpha as an operator name, and differentiate functionally with Maple's D command.
I shall make a guess as to what you meant.
restart;
Typesetting:-Suppress(alpha(t));
Typesetting:-Settings(prime=t):
Typesetting:-Settings(typesetprime=true):
M := Matrix([[ sin(alpha(t)), exp(p*alpha(t)) ]]);
map(diff, M, t);
If that's not the kind of thing that you're after then you should explain your purpose and needs in greater detail.
Your question's title mentions a desire to have something not "evaluate". What did you mean by that? Have you perhaps assigned something to the name f?
Thank you for answering. I found the solution after a lot of guess and checking and reading. Here is my code with my solution.
with(Typesetting) :
Settings(typesetdot = true);
a:= alpha(t)
Rna:= [ cos(alpha), -sin(alpha), 0; sin(alpha), cos(alpha), 0; 0, 0, 1 ]
b := beta(t)
Rab:= [ cos(beta), -sin(beta), 0; sin(beta), cos(beta), 0; 0, 0, 1 ]
Rnab:= Rna . Rab
Rnab:= map(diff, Rnab, t)
Sorry for the multiple answers, I am getting use to the website.
Related
I'm trying to translate the following Matlab code to C/C++.
indl = find(dlamu1 < 0); indu = find(dlamu2 < 0);
s = min([1; -lamu1(indl)./dlamu1(indl); -lamu2(indu)./dlamu2(indu)]);
I've read on another thread that there's yet no equivalent in the Eigen library to the find() function and I'm at peace with that and have brute-forced around it.
Now, if I wanted to do the coefficient-wise division of lamu1 and dlamu1, I'd go for lamu1.cwiseQuotient(dlamu1) but how do I go about doing that but only for some of their coefficients, which indexes are specified by the coefficients of indl? I haven't found anything about this in the documentation, but maybe I'm not using the right search terms.
With the default branch you can just write lamu1(indl) with indl a std::vector<int> or a Eigen::VectorXi or whatever you like that supports random access through operator[].
There is no equivalent of find (yet) even in the default branch. Your function can however be expressed using the select method (also works with Eigen 3.3.x):
double ret1 = (dlamu1.array()<0).select(-lamu1.cwiseQuotient(dlamu1), 1.0).minCoeff();
return std::min(1.0,ret1); // not necessary, if dlamu1.array()<0 at least once
select evaluates lazily, i.e., only if the condition is true, the quotient will be calculated. On the other hand, a lot of unnecessary comparisons with 1.0 will happen with the code above.
If [d]lamu are stored in Eigen::ArrayXd instead of Eigen::VectorXd, you can write:
double ret1 = (dlamu1<0).select(-lamu1/dlamu1, 1.0).minCoeff();
If you brute-forced indl anyway, you can as ggael suggested write:
lamu1(indl).cwiseQuotient(dlamu1(indl)).minCoeff();
(this is undefined/crashes if indl.size()==0)
Recently stan has added the integrate_ode method. Unfortunately the only documentation I can find is the stan reference manual (p.191ff). I have a model that would require some driving signal. As I understand the parameter x_r and x_i are supposed to be used for this.
For the sake of a concrete example lets assume I want to implement the example from the documentation with following change:
real[] sho(real t,
real[] y,
real[] theta,
real[] x_r,
int[] x_i) {
real dydt[2];
real input_signal; // Change from here!!!
input_signal <- how_to(t, x_r, x_i);
dydt[1] <- y[2] + input_signal; // Change to here!!!
dydt[2] <- -y[1] - theta[1] * y[2];
return dydt;
}
the input signal is supposed to be a time series that is inputted - let's say I submit input_signal_vector <- sin(t) + rnorm(T, sd=0.1) (which is supposed to be a signal at the time points in ts) and I plan to use for input_signal the closest value in time.
The only way I can imagine is one could concat ts and input_signal_vector in x_r and then a search in this array. But I can not imagine this is the intended use of these parameter. It would also be extremely inefficient.
So if someone could show how such a case is supposed to be solved I would be very grateful.
I have a function like this:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(value, precision)
If I use it like this:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, 1)
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(amps, 2)
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(watts, 2)
Are those 1/2s magic numbers?
Yes, they are magic numbers. It's obvious that the numbers 1 and 2 specify precision in the code sample but not why. Why do you need amps and watts to be more precise than volts at that point?
Also, avoiding magic numbers allows you to centralize code changes rather than having to scour the code when for the literal number 2 when your precision needs to change.
I would propose something like:
HIGH_PRECISION = 3;
MED_PRECISION = 2;
LOW_PRECISION = 1;
And your client code would look like:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, LOW_PRECISION )
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(amps, MED_PRECISION )
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(watts, MED_PRECISION )
Then, if in the future you do something like this:
HIGH_PRECISION = 6;
MED_PRECISION = 4;
LOW_PRECISION = 2;
All you do is change the constants...
But to try and answer the question in the OP title:
IMO the only numbers that can truly be used and not be considered "magic" are -1, 0 and 1 when used in iteration, testing lengths and sizes and many mathematical operations. Some examples where using constants would actually obfuscate code:
for (int i=0; i<someCollection.Length; i++) {...}
if (someCollection.Length == 0) {...}
if (someCollection.Length < 1) {...}
int MyRidiculousSignReversalFunction(int i) {return i * -1;}
Those are all pretty obvious examples. E.g. start and the first element and increment by one, testing to see whether a collection is empty and sign reversal... ridiculous but works as an example. Now replace all of the -1, 0 and 1 values with 2:
for (int i=2; i<50; i+=2) {...}
if (someCollection.Length == 2) {...}
if (someCollection.Length < 2) {...}
int MyRidiculousDoublinglFunction(int i) {return i * 2;}
Now you have start asking yourself: Why am I starting iteration on the 3rd element and checking every other? And what's so special about the number 50? What's so special about a collection with two elements? the doubler example actually makes sense here but you can see that the non -1, 0, 1 values of 2 and 50 immediately become magic because there's obviously something special in what they're doing and we have no idea why.
No, they aren't.
A magic number in that context would be a number that has an unexplained meaning. In your case, it specifies the precision, which clearly visible.
A magic number would be something like:
int calculateFoo(int input)
{
return 0x3557 * input;
}
You should be aware that the phrase "magic number" has multiple meanings. In this case, it specifies a number in source code, that is unexplainable by the surroundings. There are other cases where the phrase is used, for example in a file header, identifying it as a file of a certain type.
A literal numeral IS NOT a magic number when:
it is used one time, in one place, with very clear purpose based on its context
it is used with such common frequency and within such a limited context as to be widely accepted as not magic (e.g. the +1 or -1 in loops that people so frequently accept as being not magic).
some people accept the +1 of a zero offset as not magic. I do not. When I see variable + 1 I still want to know why, and ZERO_OFFSET cannot be mistaken.
As for the example scenario of:
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, 1)
And the proposed
float_as_thousands_str_with_precision(volts, HIGH_PRECISION)
The 1 is magic if that function for volts with 1 is going to be used repeatedly for the same purpose. Then sure, it's "magic" but not because the meaning is unclear, but because you simply have multiple occurences.
Paul's answer focused on the "unexplained meaning" part thinking HIGH_PRECISION = 3 explained the purpose. IMO, HIGH_PRECISION offers no more explanation or value than something like PRECISION_THREE or THREE or 3. Of course 3 is higher than 1, but it still doesn't explain WHY higher precision was needed, or why there's a difference in precision. The numerals offer every bit as much intent and clarity as the proposed labels.
Why is there a need for varying precision in the first place? As an engineering guy, I can assume there's three possible reasons: (a) a true engineering justification that the measurement itself is only valid to X precision, so therefore the display shoulld reflect that, or (b) there's only enough display space for X precision, or (c) the viewer won't care about anything higher that X precision even if its available.
Those are complex reasons difficult to capture in a constant label, and are probbaly better served by a comment (to explain why something is beng done).
IF the use of those functions were in one place, and one place only, I would not consider the numerals magic. The intent is clear.
For reference:
A literal numeral IS magic when
"Unique values with unexplained meaning or multiple occurrences which
could (preferably) be replaced with named constants." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_number_%28programming%29 (3rd bullet)
What is the best way to define a numerical constant in Mathematica?
For example, say I want g to be the approximate acceleration due to gravity on the surface of the Earth. I give it a numerical value (in m/s^2), tell Mathematica it's numeric, positive and a constant using
Unprotect[g];
ClearAll[g]
N[g] = 9.81;
NumericQ[g] ^= True;
Positive[g] ^= True;
SetAttributes[g, Constant];
Protect[g];
Then I can use it as a symbol in symbolic calculations that will automatically evaluate to 9.81 when numerical results are called for. For example 1.0 g evaluates to 9.81.
This does not seem as well tied into Mathematica as built in numerical constants. For example Pi > 0 will evaluate to True, but g > 0 will not. (I could add g > 0 to the global $Assumptions but even then I need a call to Simplify for it to take effect.)
Also, Positive[g] returns True, but Positive[g^2] does not evaluate - compare this with the equivalent statements using Pi.
So my question is, what else should I do to define a numerical constant? What other attributes/properties can be set? Is there an easier way to go about this? Etc...
I'd recommend using a zero-argument "function". That way it can be given both the NumericFunction attribute and a numeric evaluation rule. that latter is important for predicates such as Positive.
SetAttributes[gravUnit, NumericFunction]
N[gravUnit[], prec_: $MachinePrecision] := N[981/100, prec]
In[121]:= NumericQ[gravitUnit[]]
Out[121]= True
In[122]:= Positive[gravUnit[]^2 - 30]
Out[122]= True
Daniel Lichtblau
May be I am naive, but to my mind your definitions are a good start. Things like g > 0->True can be added via UpValues. For Positive[g^2] to return True, you probably have to overload Positive, because of the depth-1 limitation for UpValues. Generally, I think the exact set of auto-evaluated expressions involving a constant is a moving target, even for built-in constants. In other words, those extra built-in rules seem to be determined from convenience and frequent uses, on a case-by-case basis, rather than from the first principles. I would just add new rules as you go, whenever you feel that you need them. You probably can not expect your constants to be as well integrated in the system as built-ins, but I think you can get pretty close. You will probably have to overload a number of built-in functions on these symbols, but again, which ones those will be, will depend on what you need from your symbol.
EDIT
I was hesitating to include this, since the code below is a hack, but it may be useful in some circumstances. Here is the code:
Clear[evalFunction];
evalFunction[fun_Symbol, HoldComplete[sym_Symbol]] := False;
Clear[defineAutoNValue];
defineAutoNValue[s_Symbol] :=
Module[{inSUpValue},
s /: expr : f_[left___, s, right___] :=
Block[{inSUpValue = True},
With[{stack = Stack[_]},
If[
expr === Unevaluated[expr] &&
(evalFunction[f, HoldComplete[s]] ||
MemberQ[
stack,
HoldForm[(op_Symbol /; evalFunction[op, HoldComplete[s]])
[___, x_ /; ! FreeQ[Unevaluated[x], HoldPattern#expr], ___]],
Infinity
]
),
f[left, N[s], right],
(* else *)
expr
]]] /; ! TrueQ[inSUpValue]];
ClearAll[substituteNumeric];
SetAttributes[substituteNumeric, HoldFirst];
substituteNumeric[code_, rules : {(_Symbol :> {__Symbol}) ..}] :=
Internal`InheritedBlock[{evalFunction},
MapThread[
Map[Function[f, evalFunction[f, HoldComplete[#]] = True], #2] &,
Transpose[List ### rules]
];
code]
With this, you may enable a symbol to auto-substitute its numerical value in places where we indicate some some functions surrounding those function calls may benefit from it. Here is an example:
ClearAll[g, f];
SetAttributes[g, Constant];
N[g] = 9.81;
NumericQ[g] ^= True;
defineAutoNValue[g];
f[g] := "Do something with g";
Here we will try to compute some expressions involving g, first normally:
In[391]:= {f[g],g^2,g^2>0, 2 g, Positive[2 g+1],Positive[2g-a],g^2+a^2,g^2+a^2>0,g<0,g^2+a^2<0}
Out[391]= {Do something with g,g^2,g^2>0,2 g,Positive[1+2 g],
Positive[-a+2 g],a^2+g^2,a^2+g^2>0,g<0,a^2+g^2<0}
And now inside our wrapper (the second argument gives a list of rules, to indicate for which symbols which functions, when wrapped around the code containing those symbols, should lead to those symbols being replaced with their numerical values):
In[392]:=
substituteNumeric[{f[g],g^2,g^2>0, 2 g, Positive[2 g+1],Positive[2g-a],g^2+a^2,g^2+a^2>0,
g<0,g^2+a^2<0},
{g:>{Positive,Negative,Greater}}]
Out[392]= {Do something with g,g^2,True,2 g,True,Positive[19.62\[VeryThinSpace]-a],
a^2+g^2,96.2361\[VeryThinSpace]+a^2>0,g<0,a^2+g^2<0}
Since the above is a hack, I can not guarantee anything about it. It may be useful in some cases, but that must be decided on a case-by-case basis.
You may want to consider working with units rather than just constants. There are a few options available in Mathematica
Units
Automatic Units
Designer units
There are quite a few technical issues and subtleties about working with units. I found the backgrounder at Designer Units very useful. There are also some interesting discussions on MathGroup. (e.g. here).
I would like to pass the parameter values in meters or kilometers (both possible) and get the result in meters/second.
I've tried to do this in the following example:
u = 3.986*10^14 Meter^3/Second^2;
v[r_, a_] := Sqrt[u (2/r - 1/a)];
Convert[r, Meter];
Convert[a, Meter];
If I try to use the defined function and conversion:
a = 24503 Kilo Meter;
s = 10198.5 Meter/Second;
r = 6620 Kilo Meter;
Solve[v[r, x] == s, x]
The function returns the following:
{x -> (3310. Kilo Meter^3)/(Meter^2 - 0.000863701 Kilo Meter^2)}
which is not the user-friendly format.
Anyway I would like to define a and r in meters or kilometers and get the result s in meters/second (Meter/Second).
I would be very thankful if anyone of you could correct the given function definition and other statements in order to get the wanted result.
Here's one way of doing it, where you use the fact that Solve returns a list of rules to substitute a value for x into v[r, x], and then use Convert, which will do the necessary simplification of the resulting algebraic expression as well:
With[{rule = First#Solve[v[r,x]==s,x]
(* Solve always returns a list of rules, because algebraic
equations may have multiple solutions. *)},
Convert[v[r,x] /. rule, Meter/Second]]
This will return (10198.5 Meter)/Second as your answer.
You just need to tell Mathematica to simplify the expression assuming that the units are "possitive", which is the reason why it doesn't do the simplifications itself. So, something like
SimplifyWithUnits[blabla_, unit_List]:= Simplify[blalba, (#>0)&/#unit];
So if you get that ugly thing, you then just type %~SimplifyWithUnits~{Meter} or whatever.