So I have a rectilinear grid that can be described with 2 vectors. 1 for the x-coordinates of the cell centres and one for the y-coordinates. These are just points with spacing like x spacing is 50 scaled to 10 scaled to 20 (55..45..30..10,10,10..10,12..20,20,20) and y spacing is 60 scaled to 40 scaled to 60 (60,60,60,55..42,40,40,40..40,42..60,60) and the grid is made like this
e.g. x = 1 2 3, gridx = 1 2 3, y = 10 11 12, gridy = 10 10 10
1 2 3 11 11 11
1 2 3 12 12 12
so then cell centre 1 is 1,10 cc2 is 2,10 etc.
Now Im trying to formulate an algorithm to calculate the positions of the cell edges in the x and y direction. So like my first idea was to first get the first edge using x(1)-[x(2)-x(1)]/2, in the real case x(2)-x(1) is equal to 60 and x(1) = 16348.95 so celledge1 = x(1)-30 = 16318.95. Then after calculating the first one I go through a loop and calculate the rest like this:
for aa = 2:length(x)+1
celledge1(aa) = x(aa-1) + [x(aa-1)-celledge(aa-1)]
end
And I did the same for y. This however does not work and my y vector in the area where the edge spacing should be should be 40 is 35,45,35,45... approx.
Anyone have any idea why this doesnt work and can point me in the right direction. Cheers
Edit: Tried to find a solution using geometric alebra:
We are trying to find the points A,B,C,....H. From basic geometry we know:
c1 (centre 1) = [A+B]/2 and c2 = [B+C]/2 etc. etc.
So we have 7 equations and 8 variables. We also know the the first few distances between centres are equal (60,60,60,60) therefore the first segment is 60 too.
B - A = 60
So now we have 8 equations and 8 variables so I made this algorithm in Matlab:
edgex = zeros(length(DATA2.x)+1,1);
edgey = zeros(length(DATA2.y)+1,1);
edgex(1) = (DATA2.x(1)*2-diffx(1))/2;
edgey(1) = (DATA2.y(1)*2-diffy(1))/2;
for aa = 2:length(DATA2.x)+1
edgex(aa) = DATA2.x(aa-1)*2-edgex(aa-1);
end
for aa = 2:length(DATA2.y)+1
edgey(aa) = DATA2.y(aa-1)*2-edgey(aa-1);
end
And I still got the same answer as before with the y spacing going 35,45,35,45 where it should be 40,40,40... Could it be an accuracy error??
Edit: here are the numbers if ur interested and I did the same computation as above only in excel: http://www.filedropper.com/workoutedges
It seems you're just trying to interpolate your data. You can do this with the built-in interp1
x = [30 24 19 16 8 7 16 22 29 31];
xi = interp1(2:2:numel(x)*2, x, 1:(numel(x)*2+1), 'linear', 'extrap');
This just sets up the original data as the even-indexed elements and interpolates the odd indices, including extrapolation for the two end points.
Results:
xi =
Columns 1 through 11:
33.0000 30.0000 27.0000 24.0000 21.5000 19.0000 17.5000 16.0000 12.0000 8.0000 7.5000
Columns 12 through 21:
7.0000 11.5000 16.0000 19.0000 22.0000 25.5000 29.0000 30.0000 31.0000 32.0000
Related
The title isn't very accurate because I didn't know the specific terms to describe it.
I have a matrix of known dimensions width and height. This matrix contains every
integer from 0 to width*height-1 so for example:
width = 7
height = 4
0 1 2 3 4 5 6
7 8 9 10 11 12 13
14 15 16 17 18 19 20
21 22 23 24 25 26 27
n = 18
x = ?
y = ?
Now if I'm given the value n = 18 I want the program to set x = 4 and y = 2 .
What is the mathematical operation behind it?
It feels like it should be pretty easy but I can wrap my head around it.
I thought the answer was x = n % width and y = n / height but it's not working, unless I'm just implementing it the wrong way
SOLVED
I'll leave the post here in case someone needs it.
The answer was actually x = n % width and y = n / width and I feel kinda dumb. You can also use height instead of width but keep in mind that you'll need to swap the operations.
I need this for Lagrange polynomials. I'm curious how one would do this without a for loop. The code currently looks like this:
tj = 1:n;
ti = zeros(n,n-1);
for i = 1:n
ti(i,:) = tj([1:i-1, i+1:end]);
end
My tj is not really just a 1:n vector but that's not important. While this for loop gets the job done, I'd rather use some matrix operation. I tried looking for some appropriate matrices to multiply it with, but no luck so far.
Here's a way:
v = [10 20 30 40]; %// example vector
n = numel(v);
M = repmat(v(:), 1, n);
M = M(~eye(n));
M = reshape(M,n-1,n).';
gives
M =
20 30 40
10 30 40
10 20 40
10 20 30
This should generalize to any n
ti = flipud(reshape(repmat(1:n, [n-1 1]), [n n-1]));
Taking a closer look at what's going on. If you look at the resulting matrix closely, you'll see that it's n-1 1's, n-1 2's, etc. from the bottom up.
For the case where n is 3.
ti =
2 3
1 3
1 2
So we can flip this vertically and get
f = flipud(ti);
1 2
1 3
2 3
Really this is [1, 2, 3; 1, 2, 3] reshaped to be 3 x 2 rather than 2 x 3.
In that line of thinking
a = repmat(1:3, [2 1])
1 2 3
1 2 3
b = reshape(a, [3 2]);
1 2
1 3
2 3
c = flipud(b);
2 3
1 3
1 2
We are now back to where you started when we bring it all together and replace 3's with n and 2's with n-1.
Here's another way. First create a matrix where each row is the vector tj but are stacked on top of each other. Next, extract the lower and upper triangular parts of the matrix without the diagonal, then add the results together ensuring that you remove the last column of the lower triangular matrix and the first column of the upper triangular matrix.
n = numel(tj);
V = repmat(tj, n, 1);
L = tril(V,-1);
U = triu(V,1);
ti = L(:,1:end-1) + U(:,2:end);
numel finds the total number of values in tj which we store in n. repmat facilitates the stacking of the vector tj to create a matrix that is n x n large. After, we use tril and triu so that we extract the lower and upper triangular parts of the matrices without the diagonal. In addition, the rest of the matrix is all zero except for the relevant triangular parts. The -1 and 1 flags for tril and triu respectively extract this out successfully while ensuring that the diagonal is all zero. This creates a column of extra zeroes appearing at the last column when calling tril and the first column when calling triu. The last part is to simply add these two matrices together ignoring the last column of the tril result and the first column of the triu result.
Given that tj = [10 20 30 40]; (borrowed from Luis Mendo's example), we get:
ti =
20 30 40
10 30 40
10 20 40
10 20 30
I have an NxM matrix in MATLAB that I would like to reorder in similar fashion to the way JPEG reorders its subblock pixels:
(image from Wikipedia)
I would like the algorithm to be generic such that I can pass in a 2D matrix with any dimensions. I am a C++ programmer by trade and am very tempted to write an old school loop to accomplish this, but I suspect there is a better way to do it in MATLAB.
I'd be rather want an algorithm that worked on an NxN matrix and go from there.
Example:
1 2 3
4 5 6 --> 1 2 4 7 5 3 6 8 9
7 8 9
Consider the code:
M = randi(100, [3 4]); %# input matrix
ind = reshape(1:numel(M), size(M)); %# indices of elements
ind = fliplr( spdiags( fliplr(ind) ) ); %# get the anti-diagonals
ind(:,1:2:end) = flipud( ind(:,1:2:end) ); %# reverse order of odd columns
ind(ind==0) = []; %# keep non-zero indices
M(ind) %# get elements in zigzag order
An example with a 4x4 matrix:
» M
M =
17 35 26 96
12 59 51 55
50 23 70 14
96 76 90 15
» M(ind)
ans =
17 35 12 50 59 26 96 51 23 96 76 70 55 14 90 15
and an example with a non-square matrix:
M =
69 9 16 100
75 23 83 8
46 92 54 45
ans =
69 9 75 46 23 16 100 83 92 54 8 45
This approach is pretty fast:
X = randn(500,2000); %// example input matrix
[r, c] = size(X);
M = bsxfun(#plus, (1:r).', 0:c-1);
M = M + bsxfun(#times, (1:r).'/(r+c), (-1).^M);
[~, ind] = sort(M(:));
y = X(ind).'; %'// output row vector
Benchmarking
The following code compares running time with that of Amro's excellent answer, using timeit. It tests different combinations of matrix size (number of entries) and matrix shape (number of rows to number of columns ratio).
%// Amro's approach
function y = zigzag_Amro(M)
ind = reshape(1:numel(M), size(M));
ind = fliplr( spdiags( fliplr(ind) ) );
ind(:,1:2:end) = flipud( ind(:,1:2:end) );
ind(ind==0) = [];
y = M(ind);
%// Luis' approach
function y = zigzag_Luis(X)
[r, c] = size(X);
M = bsxfun(#plus, (1:r).', 0:c-1);
M = M + bsxfun(#times, (1:r).'/(r+c), (-1).^M);
[~, ind] = sort(M(:));
y = X(ind).';
%// Benchmarking code:
S = [10 30 100 300 1000 3000]; %// reference to generate matrix size
f = [1 1]; %// number of cols is S*f(1); number of rows is S*f(2)
%// f = [0.5 2]; %// plotted with '--'
%// f = [2 0.5]; %// plotted with ':'
t_Amro = NaN(size(S));
t_Luis = NaN(size(S));
for n = 1:numel(S)
X = rand(f(1)*S(n), f(2)*S(n));
f_Amro = #() zigzag_Amro(X);
f_Luis = #() zigzag_Luis(X);
t_Amro(n) = timeit(f_Amro);
t_Luis(n) = timeit(f_Luis);
end
loglog(S.^2*prod(f), t_Amro, '.b-');
hold on
loglog(S.^2*prod(f), t_Luis, '.r-');
xlabel('number of matrix entries')
ylabel('time')
The figure below has been obtained with Matlab R2014b on Windows 7 64 bits. Results in R2010b are very similar. It is seen that the new approach reduces running time by a factor between 2.5 (for small matrices) and 1.4 (for large matrices). Results are seen to be almost insensitive to matrix shape, given a total number of entries.
Here's a non-loop solution zig_zag.m. It looks ugly but it works!:
function [M,index] = zig_zag(M)
[r,c] = size(M);
checker = rem(hankel(1:r,r-1+(1:c)),2);
[rEven,cEven] = find(checker);
[cOdd,rOdd] = find(~checker.'); %'#
rTotal = [rEven; rOdd];
cTotal = [cEven; cOdd];
[junk,sortIndex] = sort(rTotal+cTotal);
rSort = rTotal(sortIndex);
cSort = cTotal(sortIndex);
index = sub2ind([r c],rSort,cSort);
M = M(index);
end
And a test matrix:
>> M = [magic(4) zeros(4,1)];
M =
16 2 3 13 0
5 11 10 8 0
9 7 6 12 0
4 14 15 1 0
>> newM = zig_zag(M) %# Zig-zag sampled elements
newM =
16
2
5
9
11
3
13
10
7
4
14
6
8
0
0
12
15
1
0
0
Here's a way how to do this. Basically, your array is a hankel matrix plus vectors of 1:m, where m is the number of elements in each diagonal. Maybe someone else has a neat idea on how to create the diagonal arrays that have to be added to the flipped hankel array without a loop.
I think this should be generalizeable to a non-square array.
% for a 3x3 array
n=3;
numElementsPerDiagonal = [1:n,n-1:-1:1];
hadaRC = cumsum([0,numElementsPerDiagonal(1:end-1)]);
array2add = fliplr(hankel(hadaRC(1:n),hadaRC(end-n+1:n)));
% loop through the hankel array and add numbers counting either up or down
% if they are even or odd
for d = 1:(2*n-1)
if floor(d/2)==d/2
% even, count down
array2add = array2add + diag(1:numElementsPerDiagonal(d),d-n);
else
% odd, count up
array2add = array2add + diag(numElementsPerDiagonal(d):-1:1,d-n);
end
end
% now flip to get the result
indexMatrix = fliplr(array2add)
result =
1 2 6
3 5 7
4 8 9
Afterward, you just call reshape(image(indexMatrix),[],1) to get the vector of reordered elements.
EDIT
Ok, from your comment it looks like you need to use sort like Marc suggested.
indexMatrixT = indexMatrix'; % ' SO formatting
[dummy,sortedIdx] = sort(indexMatrixT(:));
sortedIdx =
1 2 4 7 5 3 6 8 9
Note that you'd need to transpose your input matrix first before you index, because Matlab counts first down, then right.
Assuming X to be the input 2D matrix and that is square or landscape-shaped, this seems to be pretty efficient -
[m,n] = size(X);
nlim = m*n;
n = n+mod(n-m,2);
mask = bsxfun(#le,[1:m]',[n:-1:1]);
start_vec = m:m-1:m*(m-1)+1;
a = bsxfun(#plus,start_vec',[0:n-1]*m);
offset_startcol = 2- mod(m+1,2);
[~,idx] = min(mask,[],1);
idx = idx - 1;
idx(idx==0) = m;
end_ind = a([0:n-1]*m + idx);
offsets = a(1,offset_startcol:2:end) + end_ind(offset_startcol:2:end);
a(:,offset_startcol:2:end) = bsxfun(#minus,offsets,a(:,offset_startcol:2:end));
out = a(mask);
out2 = m*n+1 - out(end:-1:1+m*(n-m+1));
result = X([out2 ; out(out<=nlim)]);
Quick runtime tests against Luis's approach -
Datasize: 500 x 2000
------------------------------------- With Proposed Approach
Elapsed time is 0.037145 seconds.
------------------------------------- With Luis Approach
Elapsed time is 0.045900 seconds.
Datasize: 5000 x 20000
------------------------------------- With Proposed Approach
Elapsed time is 3.947325 seconds.
------------------------------------- With Luis Approach
Elapsed time is 6.370463 seconds.
Let's assume for a moment that you have a 2-D matrix that's the same size as your image specifying the correct index. Call this array idx; then the matlab commands to reorder your image would be
[~,I] = sort (idx(:)); %sort the 1D indices of the image into ascending order according to idx
reorderedim = im(I);
I don't see an obvious solution to generate idx without using for loops or recursion, but I'll think some more.
I have a m x n matrix and want to be able to calculate sums of arbitrary rectangular submatrices. This will happen several times for the given matrix. What data structure should I use?
For example I want to find sum of rectangle in matrix
1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12
13 14 15 16
Sum is 68.
What I'll do is accumulating it row by row:
1 2 3 4
6 8 10 12
15 18 21 24
28 32 36 40
And then, if I want to find sum of the matrix I just accumulate 28,32,36,40 = 136. Only four operation instead of 15.
If I want to find sum of second and third row, I just accumulate 15,18,21,24 and subtract 1, 2, 3, 4. = 6+8+10+12+15+18+21+24 = 68.
But in this case I can use another matrix, accumulating this one by columns:
1 3 6 10
5 11 18 26
9 19 30 42
13 27 42 58
and in this case I just sum 26 and 42 = 68. Only 2 operation instead of 8. For wider sub-matrix is is efficient to use second method and matrix, for higher - first one. Can I somehow split merge this to methods to one matrix?
So I just sum to corner and subtract another two?
You're nearly there with your method. The solution is to use a summed area table (aka Integral Image):
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summed_area_table
The key idea is you do one pass through your matrix and accumulate such that "the value at any point (x, y) in the summed area table is just the sum of all the pixels above and to the left of (x, y), inclusive.".
Then you can compute the sum inside any rectangle in constant time with four lookups.
Why can't you just add them using For loops?
int total = 0;
for(int i = startRow; i = endRow; i++)
{
for(int j = startColumn; j = endColumn; j++)
{
total += array[i][j];
}
}
Where your subarray ("rectangle") would go from startRow to endRow (width) and startColumn to endColumn (height).
I want to find the best match of a sequence of integers within a NxN matrix. The problem is that I don't know how to extract the position of this best match. The following code that I have should calculate the edit distance but I would like to know where in my grid that edit distance is shortest!
function res = searchWordDistance(word,grid)
% wordsize = length(word); % extract the actual size
% [x ,y] = find(word(1) == grid);
D(1,1,1)=0;
for i=2:length(word)+1
D(i,1,1) = D(i-1,1,1)+1;
end
for j=2:length(grid)
D(1,1,j) = D(1,1,j-1)+1;
D(1,j,1) = D(1,j-1,1)+1;
end
% inspect the grid for best match
for i=2:length(word)
for j=2:length(grid)
for z=2:length(grid)
if(word(i-1)==grid(j-1,z-1))
d = 0;
else
d=1;
end
c1=D(i-1,j-1,z-1)+d;
c2=D(i-1,j,z)+1;
c3=D(i,j-1,z-1)+1;
D(i,j,z) = min([c1 c2 c3]);
end
end
end
I have used this code (in one less dimension) to compare two strings.
EDIT Using a 5x5 matrix as example
15 17 19 20 22
14 8 1 15 24
11 4 17 3 2
14 2 1 14 8
19 23 5 1 22
now If I have a sequence [4,1,1] and [15,14,12,14] they should be found using the algorithm. The first one is a perfect match(diagonal starts at (3,2)). The second one is on the first column and is the closest match for that sequence since only one number is wrong.