I can't figure out how to solve this task using PLC ladder language. PLC programme must compute actual flow of water. The gate is moving and the time of gate is set to 5 minutes. In this gate the impulses are counted (with wage for example - wage of 1 m^3). The overall time (the space where the gate can move) is set to 1 hour.
Gate time: for example 5 minutes
Overall time: 1 hour
Impulse is triggered by me.
Example if we trigger the I1 input - 3 times (one input have wage 1 m^3) in a gate of 5 minutes (5 minutes is 1/12 hour) so 3 * 1m^3 divided by (1/12)h = 36 m^3 / h It gave us actual water flow. I can only use TON timer and I've got 2 binary inputs.
Do you have any idea how to start this?
Exercise
It's a logger I tried to base on, but now I don't know what to do next.
#include "MT-101.h"
IF FS1_fs MOVE 0, REG2
IF FS1_fs MOVE RTC_Sec, REG2
NE RTC_Sec, REG2, Q1
IF NOT Q1 EXT
MOVE RTC_Sec, REG2
IF NOT I1 EXT
TCPY XREG1, 511, XREG2
MOVE AN1, XREG1
Related
Thor is playing a game where there are N levels and M types of available weapons. The levels are numbered from 0 to N-1 and the weapons are numbered from 0 to M-1. He can clear these levels in any order. In each level, some subset of these M weapons is required to clear this level. If in a particular level, he needs to buy x new weapons, he will pay x^2 coins for it. Also note that he can carry all the weapons he has currently to the next level. Initially, he has no weapons. Can you find out the minimum coins required such that he can clear all the levels?
Input Format
The first line of input contains 2 space separated integers:
N = the number of levels in the game
M = the number of types of weapons
N lines follow. The ith of these lines contains a binary string of length M. If the jth character of this string is 1, it means we need a weapon of type j to clear the ith level.
Constraints
1 <= N <= 20
1 <= M <= 20
Output Format
Print a single integer which is the answer to the problem.
Sample TestCase 1
Input
1 4
0101
Output
4
Explanation
There is only one level in this game. We need 2 types of weapons - 1 and 3. Since, initially, Thor has no weapons he will have to buy these, which will cost him 2^2 = 4 coins.
Sample TestCase 2
Input
3 3
111
001
010
Output
3
Explanation
There are 3 levels in this game. The 0th level (111) requires all 3 types of weapons. The 1st level (001) requires only weapon of type 2. The 2nd level requires only weapon of type 1. If we clear the levels in the given order (0-1-2), total cost = 3^2 + 0^2 + 0^2 = 9 coins. If we clear the levels in the order 1-2-0, it will cost = 1^2 + 1^2 + 1^2 = 3 coins, which is the optimal way.
The beauty of Gassa's answer is partly in the fact that if a different state can be reached by oring one of the levels' bitstring masks with the current state, we are guaranteed that achieving the current state did not include visiting this level (since otherwise those bits would already be set). This means checking a transition from one state to another by adding a different bitmask, guarantees we are looking at an ordering that did not yet include that mask. So a formulation like Gassa's could work: let f(st) represent the cost of acheiving state st, then:
f(st) = min(
some known cost of f(st),
f(prev_st) + (popcount(prev_st | level) - popcount(prev_st))^2
)
for all level and prev_st that or to st
So I was told to ask this on here instead of StackExchage:
If I have a program P, which runs on a 2GHz machine M in 30seconds and is optimized by replacing all instances of 'raise to the power 4' with 3 instructions of multiplying x by. This optimized program will be P'. The CPI of multiplication is 2 and CPI of power is 12. If there are 10^9 such operations optimized, what is the percent of total execution time improved?
Here is what I've deduced so far.
For P, we have:
time (30s)
CPI: 12
Frequency (2GHz)
For P', we have:
CPI (6) [2*3]
Frequency (2GHz)
So I need to figure our how to calculate the time of P' in order to compare the times. But I have no idea how to achieve this. Could someone please help me out?
Program P, which runs on a 2GHz machine M in 30 seconds and is optimized by replacing all instances of 'raise to the power 4' with 3 instructions of multiplying x by. This optimized program will be P'. The CPI of multiplication is 2 and CPI of power is 12. If there are 10^9 such operations optimized,
From this information we can compute time needed to execute all POWER4 ("raise to the power 4) instructions, we have total count of such instructions (all POWER4 was replaced, count is 10^9 or 1 G). Every POWER4 instruction needs 12 clock cycles (CPI = clock per instruction), so all POWER4 were executed in 1G * 12 = 12G cycles.
2GHz machine has 2G cycles per second, and there are 30 seconds of execution. Total P program execution is 2G*30 = 60 G cycles (60 * 10^9). We can conclude that P program has some other instructions. We don't know what instructions, how many executions they have and there is no information about their mean CPI. But we know that time needed to execute other instructions is 60 G - 12 G = 48 G (total program running time minus POWER4 running time - true for simple processors). There is some X executed instructions with Y mean CPI, so X*Y = 48 G.
So, total cycles executed for the program P is
Freq * seconds = POWER4_count * POWER4_CPI + OTHER_count * OTHER_mean_CPI
2G * 30 = 1G * 12 + X*Y
Or total running time for P:
30s = (1G * 12 + X*Y) / 2GHz
what is the percent of total execution time improved?
After replacing 1G POWER4 operations with 3 times more MUL instructions (multiply by) we have 3G MUL operations, and cycles needed for them is now CPI * count, where MUL CPI is 2: 2*3G = 6G cycles. X*Y part of P' was unchanged, and we can solve the problem.
P' time in seconds = ( MUL_count * MUL_CPI + OTHER_count * OTHER_mean_CPI ) / Frequency
P' time = (3G*2 + X*Y) / 2GHz
Improvement is not so big as can be excepted, because POWER4 instructions in P takes only some part of running time: 12G/60G; and optimization converted 12G to 6G, without changing remaining 48 G cycles part. By halving only some part of time we get not half of time.
We have one distribution center ( ware house ) and we are getting orders in real time whose time/distance from ware house and other order locations is known.
time matrix=
W O1 O2 O3
W 0 5 20 2
O1 5 0 21 7
O2 20 21 0 11
O3 2 7 11 0
order time of O1= 10:00 AM
order time of O2= 10:20 AM
order time of O3= 10:25 AM
I want to club as many as order possible such that delivery time of any order does not exceed by 2 hours of its order time. Thus the question is to reduce the number of trips(Trip is when delivery agent goes for delivery).
I am trying to come up with algorithm for this. there are two competing factors when
We can combine all the orders in the sequence as they are coming till it satisfies the constraint of delivery of the order within 2 hours of its ordering time.
We can modify above approach to find the bottleneck order(due to which we can not club more order now in approach 1). and pull it out from trip1 and make it a part of trip 2(new order) and wait for other orders to club it with trip1 or trip2 depending.
All the orders are coming in realtime. What will be the best approach to conquer this situation. Let me know if you need more clarity on this.
Very safe and easy algorithm which is guaranteed to not exceed the maximal waiting time for an order:
Let TSP() be a function which returns the estimate of time spent to visit given places. The estimate is pessimistic, i.e. the actual ride time can be shorter or equals to estimate, but not longer. For the good start you can implement TSP() very easily in a greedy way: from each place go to the nearest place. You can subtract the length of the longer edge coming out from W to have better estimate (so a car will always take the shorter edge coming out of W). If TSP() would happen to be optimal, then the whole algorithm presented here would be also optimal. The overall algorithm is as good as TSP() implementation is, it highly depends on good estimation.
Let earliestOrderTime be a time of the earliest not handled yet order.
Repeat every minute:
If there is a new order: If s is empty, set earliestOrderTime to current time. Add it to a set s. Calculate t = TSP(s + W).
If (current time + t >= earliestOrderTime + 2 hours): send a car for a TSP(s + W) trip. Make s an empty set.
Example
For your exemplary data it will work like this:
10:00. earliestOrderTime = 10:00. s = {O1}. t = TSP({01, W}) = 10 - 5 = 5.
10:00 + 0:05 < 10:00 + 2:00, so we don't send a car yet, we wait.
...
10:20. s = {O1, O2}. t = 46 - 20 = 26.
10:20 + 0:26 < 10:00 + 2:00, so we wait.
...
10:25. s = {O1, O2, O3}. t = 2 + 7 + 21 + 20 - 20 = 30.
10:25 + 0:30 < 10:00 + 2:00, so we wait.
...
11.30.
11:30 + 0:30 >= 10:00 + 2:00, so we send a car to go to O3, O1, O2 and back to W. He visits orders at 11:32, 11:39, 12:00 and come backs at 12:20. Guys where waiting 67, 99 and 100 minutes.
I'm using Stata to estimate Value-at-risk (VaR) with the historical simulation method. Basically, I will create a rolling window with 100 observations, to estimate VaR for the next 250 days (repeat 250 times). Hence, as I've known, the rolling window with time series command in Stata would be useful in this case. Here is the process:
Input: 350 values
1. Ascending sort the very first 100 values (by magnitude).
2. Then I need to take the 5th smallest for each window.
3. Repeat 250 times.
Output: a list of the 5th values (250 in total).
Sound simple, but I cannot do it the right way. This was my attempt below:
program his,rclass
sort lnreturn
return scalar actual=lnreturn in 5
end
tsset stt
time variable: stt, 1 to 350
delta: 1 unit
rolling actual=r(actual), window(100) saving(C:\result100.dta, replace) : his
(running his on estimation sample)
And the result is:
Start end actual
1 100 -.047856
2 101 -.047856
3 102 -.047856
4 103 -.047856
.... ..... ......
251 350 -.047856
What I want is 250 different 5th values in panel "actual", not the same like that.
If I understand this correctly, you want the 5th percentile of values in a window of 100. That should yield to summarize, detail or centile. I see no need to write a program.
Your bug is that your program his calculates the same thing each time it is called. There is no communication about windows other than what is explicit in your code. It is like saying
move here: now add 2 + 2
move there: now add 2 + 2
move to New York: now add 2 + 2
The result is invariant to your supposed position.
Note that I doubt that
return scalar actual=lnreturn in 5
really is your code. lnreturn[5] should work.
UPDATE You don't even need rolling here. Looping over data is easy enough. The data in this example are clearly fake.
clear
* sandpit
set obs 500
set seed 2803
gen y = ceil(exp(rnormal(3,2)))
l y in 1/5
* initialise
gen p5 = .
* windows of length 100: 1..100, 101..200, ...
quietly forval j = 1/401 {
local J = `j' + 99
su y in `j'/`J', detail
replace p5 = r(p5) in `j'
}
* check first calculation
su y in 1/100, detail
l in 1/5
Here is a probability problem: you observe .5 cars on average passing in front of you every 5 minutes on a road. What is the probability of seeing at least 1 car in 10 minutes?
I'm trying to solve this in 2 ways. The first way is to say: P(no car in 5 minutes) = 1 - .5 = .5. P(no car in first 5 minutes and no car in second 5 minutes) = P(no car in first 5 minutes) * P(no car in second 5 minutes) by independence. Therefore P(at least 1 car in 10 minutes) = 1 - .5*.5 = .75.
However, if I try the same, with a Poisson distribution with rate lambda = .5 per unit of time, for 2 units of time, I get: P(at least 1 car in 2 units of time) = 1 - exp(-2*lambda) = .63.
Am I doing something wrong? If not, what explains the discrepancy?
Thanks!
Your first calculation is incorrect. An average .5 cars / 5 minutes does not imply P(no car in 5 minutes) = 0.5. Consider for instance a process where every five minute, you see either no car with probability 90%, or 5 cars with probability 10%. On average you will see 0.5 cars every five minute, but the probability you see 0 cars in the next 5 minutes is clearly not 50%.
I haven't checked the computations for your second example; the calculation logic is looks correct, but the conclusion is incorrect: you are making an assumption about the distribution (Poisson) which is plausible but not implied by the problem statement.
If you take again my example, which is consistent with your problem description, the probability to see 0 cars in 10 minutes is 0.9 x 0.9 = 0.81, which gives you 19% of seeing one car or more. We could arbitrarily change my example to give you a wide variety of probabilities.
From your problem statement, the only thing you can say is that "in the long run, you'll see 0.5 cars every 5 minutes". Beyond that you can't make a statement on what should be expected within 10 minutes, unless you make some assumptions about the distribution of the cars arrivals.