I am in the following situation:
S=QQ[x_0..x_n];
for i from 0 to n do for j from i to n do d_{i,j} = x_i*x_j;
Now I would like to construct a vector whose elements are
d_{0,0}=x_0^2,d_{0,1}=x_0*x_1,...,d_{0,n}=x_0*x_n,d_{1,1}=x_1^2,d_{1,2}=x_1*x_2,...,d_{n,n}=x_n^2
How can I do this in MacAulay2? Thank you very much.
This may be what you are looking for.
m=ideal(S_*)
m^2_*
The _* operator gets the generators of an ideal. So, m is the maximal ideal, and you are looking for the generators of m^2.
Alternatively
flatten entries basis(2,S)
which simply gives you the vector basis of the ring S in degree 2.
In Macaulay2, vector refers to a column vector, and if we have vector elements, we can construct the following vector:
SQ= for i from 0 to n list d_{i}
vector(SQ)
But since the vector you want is not a column vector, it's best to make a matrix:
d=mutableMatrix genericMatrix(S,n,n)
for i from 0 to n do for j from 0 to n do d_(i,j)=x_i*x_j
Give a sparse matrix, how to reorder the rows and columns such that it is in block diagonal like form via row and column permutation?
Row and column permutation are not necessarily coupled like reverse Cuthill-McKee ordering:
http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/symrcm.html?refresh=true In short, you can independently perform any row or column permutation.
The overall goal is to cluster all the non zero elements towards diagonal line.
Here is one approach.
First make a graph whose vertices are rows and columns. Every non-zero value is a edge between that row and that column.
You can then use a standard graph theory algorithm to detect the connected components of this graph. The single element ones represent all zero rows and columns. Number the others. Those components may have unequal numbers of rows and columns. You can distribute some zero rows and columns to them to make them square.
Your square components will be your blocks, and from the numbering of those components you know what order to put them in. Now just reorder rows and columns to achieve this structure and, voila! (The remaining zero rows/columns will result in a bunch of 0 blocks at the bottom right of the diagonal.)
Just an idea, but if you make a new matrix Ab from the original block-matrix A that contains the block-sparsity structure of A. E.g.:
A = [B 0 0; 0 0 C; 0 D 0]; % with matrices 0 (zero elements), B,C and D
Ab = [1 0 0; 0 0 2; 0 3 0]; % with identifiers 1, 2 and 3 (1-->B, 2-->C, 3-->D)
Then Ab is a simple sparse matrix (size 3x3 in the example). You can then use the reverse Cuthill-McKee ordering to get the permutations you want, and apply these permutations to Ab.
p = symrcm(Ab);
Abperm = Ab(p,p);
Then use the identifiers to create the ordered block matrix Aperm from Abperm and you'll have the desired result, I believe.
You'll need to be clever in assigning the identifiers to the individual blocks and so on, but this should be possible.
I have a nxn singular matrix. I want to add k rows (which must be from the standard basis e1, e2, ..., en) to this matrix such that the new (n+k)xn matrix is full column rank. The number of added rows k must be minimum and they can be added in any order (not just e1, e2 ,..., it can be e4, e10, e1, ...) as long as k is minimum.
Does anybody know a simple way to do this? Any help is appreciated.
You can achieve this by doing a QR decomposition with column pivoting, then taking the transpose of the last n-rank(A) columns of the permutation matrix.
In matlab, this is achieved by the qr function(See the matlab documentation here):
r=rank(A);
[Q,R,E]=qr(A);
newA=[A;transpose(E(:,end-r+1:end))];
Each row of transpose(E(:,end-r+1:end)) will be a member of standard basis, rank of newA will be n, and this is also the minimal number of standard basis you will need to do so.
Here is how this works:
QR decomposition with column pivoting is a standard procedure to decompose a matrix A into products:
A*E==Q*R
where Q is an orthogonal matrix if A is real, or an unitary matrix if A is complex; R is upper triangular matrix, and E is a permutation matrix.
In short, the permutations are chosen so that the diagonal elements are larger than the off-diagonals in the same row, and that size of the diagonal elements are non-increasing. More detailed description can be found on the netlib QR factorization page.
Since Q and E are both orthogonal (or unitary) matrices, the rank of R is the same as the rank of A. To bring up the rank of A, we just need to find ways to increase the rank of R; and this is much more straight forward thanks to the structure of R as the result of pivoting and the fact that it is upper-triangular.
Now, with the requirement placed on pivoting procedure, if any diagonal element of R is 0, the entire row has to be 0. The n-rank(A) rows of 0s in the bottom if R is responsible for the nullity. If we replace the lower right corner with an identity matrix, the that new matrix would be full rank. Well, we cannot really do the replacement, but we can append the rows matrix to the bottom of R and form a new matrix that has the same rank:
B==[ 0 I ] => newR=[ R ; B ]
Here the dimensionality of I is the nullity of A and that of R.
It is readily seen that rank(newR)=n. Then we can also define a new unitary Q matrix by expanding its dimensionality in a trivial manner:
newQ=[Q 0 ; 0 I]
With that, our new rank n matrix can be obtained as
newA=newQ*newR.transpose(E)=[Q*R ; B ]*transpose(E) =[A ; B*transpose(E)]
Note that B is [0 I] and E is a permutation matrix, so B*transpose(E) is simply the transpose
of the last n-rank(A) columns of E, and thus a set of rows made of standard basis, and that's just what you wanted!
Is n very large? The simplest solution without using any math would be to try adding e_i and seeing if the rank increases. If it does, keep e_i. proceed until finished.
I like #Xiaolei Zhu's solution because it's elegant, but another way to go (that's even more computationally efficient is):
Determine if any rows, indexed by i, of your matrix A are all zero. If so, then the corresponding e_i must be concatenated.
After that process, you can simply concatenate any subset of the n - rank(A) columns of the identity matrix that you didn't add in step 1.
rows/cols from Identity matrix can be added in any order. it does not need to be added in usual order as e1,e2,... in general situation for making matrix full rank.
I'm looking at the standard definition of the assignment problem as defined here
My question is to do with the two constraints (latex notation follows):
\sum_{j=1}^n(x_{ij}) = 1 for all i = 1, ... , n
\sum_{i=1}^n(x_{ij}) = 1 for all j = 1, ... , n
Specifically, why the second constraint required? Doesn't the first already cover all pairs of x_{ij}?
Consider the matrix x_ij with the i ranging over the rows, and j ranging over the columns.
The first equation says that for each i (that is, for each row!) the sum of values in that row equals 1.
The second equations says thta for each j (that is, for each column!) the sum of values in that column equals 1.
No. Given that all the entries in X are 0 or 1, one constraint says 'there is exactly one 1 in each column' - the other says 'there is exactly one 1 in each row' (I always forget which way round matrix subscripts conventionally go). These statements have independent truth values.
This is not even remotely a programming problem. But I'll answer it anyway.
The first is a sum over j, for EACH value of i. The second is a sum over i, for EACH value of j.
So essentially, one of these constraint sets requires that the sum across the rows of the matrix x_{i,j} matrix must be unity. The other constraint is a requirement that the sum down the columns of that matrix must be unity.
(edit) It seems that we are still not being clear here. Consider the matrix
[0 1]
[0 1]
One must agree that the sum across the rows of this matrix is 1 for each row. However, when you form the sum of the elements of the first column, it is zero, and the sum of the elements in the second column, we find 2.
Now, consider a different matrix.
[0 1]
[1 0]
See that here, the sum over the rows or down the columns is always 1.
I have got a square matrix consisting of elements either 1
or 0. An ith row toggle toggles all the ith row elements (1
becomes 0 and vice versa) and jth column toggle toggles all
the jth column elements. I have got another square matrix of
similar size. I want to change the initial matrix to the
final matrix using the minimum number of toggles. For example
|0 0 1|
|1 1 1|
|1 0 1|
to
|1 1 1|
|1 1 0|
|1 0 0|
would require a toggle of the first row and of the last
column.
What will be the correct algorithm for this?
In general, the problem will not have a solution. To see this, note that transforming matrix A to matrix B is equivalent to transforming the matrix A - B (computed using binary arithmetic, so that 0 - 1 = 1) to the zero matrix. Look at the matrix A - B, and apply column toggles (if necessary) so that the first row becomes all 0's or all 1's. At this point, you're done with column toggles -- if you toggle one column, you have to toggle them all to get the first row correct. If even one row is a mixture of 0's and 1's at this point, the problem cannot be solved. If each row is now all 0's or all 1's, the problem is solvable by toggling the appropriate rows to reach the zero matrix.
To get the minimum, compare the number of toggles needed when the first row is turned to 0's vs. 1's. In the OP's example, the candidates would be toggling column 3 and row 1 or toggling columns 1 and 2 and rows 2 and 3. In fact, you can simplify this by looking at the first solution and seeing if the number of toggles is smaller or larger than N -- if larger than N, than toggle the opposite rows and columns.
It's not always possible. If you start with a 2x2 matrix with an even number of 1s you can never arrive at a final matrix with an odd number of 1s.
Algorithm
Simplify the problem from "Try to transform A into B" into "Try to transform M into 0", where M = A xor B. Now all the positions which must be toggled have a 1 in them.
Consider an arbitrary position in M. It is affected by exactly one column toggle and exactly one row toggle. If its initial value is V, the presence of the column toggle is C, and the presence of the row toggle is R, then the final value F is V xor C xor R. That's a very simple relationship, and it makes the problem trivial to solve.
Notice that, for each position, R = F xor V xor C = 0 xor V xor C = V xor C. If we set C then we force the value of R, and vice versa. That's awesome, because it means if I set the value of any row toggle then I will force all of the column toggles. Any one of those column toggles will force all of the row toggles. If the result is the 0 matrix, then we have a solution. We only need to try two cases!
Pseudo-code
function solve(Matrix M) as bool possible, bool[] rowToggles, bool[] colToggles:
For var b in {true, false}
colToggles = array from c in M.colRange select b xor Matrix(0, c)
rowToggles = array from r in M.rowRange select colToggles[0] xor M(r, 0)
if none from c in M.colRange, r in M.rowRange
where colToggle[c] xor rowToggle[r] xor M(r, c) != 0 then
return true, rowToggles, colToggles
end if
next var
return false, null, null
end function
Analysis
The analysis is trivial. We try two cases, within which we run along a row, then a column, then all cells. Therefore if there are r rows and c columns, meaning the matrix has size n = c * r, then the time complexity is O(2 * (c + r + c * r)) = O(c * r) = O(n). The only space we use is what is required for storing the outputs = O(c + r).
Therefore the algorithm takes time linear in the size of the matrix, and uses space linear in the size of the output. It is asymptotically optimal for obvious reasons.
I came up with a brute force algorithm.
The algorithm is based on 2 conjectures:
(so it may not work for all matrices - I'll verify them later)
The minimum (number of toggles) solution will contain a specific row or column only once.
In whatever order we apply the steps to convert the matrix, we get the same result.
The algorithm:
Lets say we have the matrix m = [ [1,0], [0,1] ].
m: 1 0
0 1
We generate a list of all row and column numbers,
like this: ['r0', 'r1', 'c0', 'c1']
Now we brute force, aka examine, every possible step combinations.
For example,we start with 1-step solution,
ksubsets = [['r0'], ['r1'], ['c0'], ['c1']]
if no element is a solution then proceed with 2-step solution,
ksubsets = [['r0', 'r1'], ['r0', 'c0'], ['r0', 'c1'], ['r1', 'c0'], ['r1', 'c1'], ['c0', 'c1']]
etc...
A ksubsets element (combo) is a list of toggle steps to apply in a matrix.
Python implementation (tested on version 2.5)
# Recursive definition (+ is the join of sets)
# S = {a1, a2, a3, ..., aN}
#
# ksubsets(S, k) = {
# {{a1}+ksubsets({a2,...,aN}, k-1)} +
# {{a2}+ksubsets({a3,...,aN}, k-1)} +
# {{a3}+ksubsets({a4,...,aN}, k-1)} +
# ... }
# example: ksubsets([1,2,3], 2) = [[1, 2], [1, 3], [2, 3]]
def ksubsets(s, k):
if k == 1: return [[e] for e in s]
ksubs = []
ss = s[:]
for e in s:
if len(ss) < k: break
ss.remove(e)
for x in ksubsets(ss,k-1):
l = [e]
l.extend(x)
ksubs.append(l)
return ksubs
def toggle_row(m, r):
for i in range(len(m[r])):
m[r][i] = m[r][i] ^ 1
def toggle_col(m, i):
for row in m:
row[i] = row[i] ^ 1
def toggle_matrix(m, combos):
# example of combos, ['r0', 'r1', 'c3', 'c4']
# 'r0' toggle row 0, 'c3' toggle column 3, etc.
import copy
k = copy.deepcopy(m)
for combo in combos:
if combo[0] == 'r':
toggle_row(k, int(combo[1:]))
else:
toggle_col(k, int(combo[1:]))
return k
def conversion_steps(sM, tM):
# Brute force algorithm.
# Returns the minimum list of steps to convert sM into tM.
rows = len(sM)
cols = len(sM[0])
combos = ['r'+str(i) for i in range(rows)] + \
['c'+str(i) for i in range(cols)]
for n in range(0, rows + cols -1):
for combo in ksubsets(combos, n +1):
if toggle_matrix(sM, combo) == tM:
return combo
return []
Example:
m: 0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0 0
k: 1 1 0
1 1 0
0 0 1
>>> m = [[0,0,0],[0,0,0],[0,0,0]]
>>> k = [[1,1,0],[1,1,0],[0,0,1]]
>>> conversion_steps(m, k)
['r0', 'r1', 'c2']
>>>
If you can only toggle the rows, and not the columns, then there will only be a subset of matrices that you can convert into the final result. If this is the case, then it would be very simple:
for every row, i:
if matrix1[i] == matrix2[i]
continue;
else
toggle matrix1[i];
if matrix1[i] == matrix2[i]
continue
else
die("cannot make similar");
This is a state space search problem. You are searching for the optimum path from a starting state to a destination state. In this particular case, "optimum" is defined as "minimum number of operations".
The state space is the set of binary matrices generatable from the starting position by row and column toggle operations.
ASSUMING that the destination is in the state space (NOT a valid assumption in some cases: see Henrik's answer), I'd try throwing a classic heuristic search (probably A*, since it is about the best of the breed) algorithm at the problem and see what happened.
The first, most obvious heuristic is "number of correct elements".
Any decent Artificial Intelligence textbook will discuss search and the A* algorithm.
You can represent your matrix as a nonnegative integer, with each cell in the matrix corresponding to exactly one bit in the integer On a system that supports 64-bit long long unsigned ints, this lets you play with anything up to 8x8. You can then use exclusive-OR operations on the number to implement the row and column toggle operations.
CAUTION: the raw total state space size is 2^(N^2), where N is the number of rows (or columns). For a 4x4 matrix, that's 2^16 = 65536 possible states.
Rather than look at this as a matrix problem, take the 9 bits from each array, load each of them into 2-byte size types (16 bits, which is probably the source of the arrays in the first place), then do a single XOR between the two.
(the bit order would be different depending on your type of CPU)
The first array would become: 0000000001111101
The second array would become: 0000000111110101
A single XOR would produce the output. No loops required. All you'd have to do is 'unpack' the result back into an array, if you still wanted to. You can read the bits without resorting to that, though.i
I think brute force is not necessary.
The problem can be rephrased in terms of a group. The matrices over the field with 2 elements constitute an commutative group with respect to addition.
As pointed out before, the question whether A can be toggled into B is equivalent to see if A-B can be toggled into 0. Note that toggling of row i is done by adding a matrix with only ones in the row i and zeros otherwise, while the toggling of column j is done by adding a matrix with only ones in column j and zeros otherwise.
This means that A-B can be toggled to the zero matrix if and only if A-B is contained in the subgroup generated by the toggling matrices.
Since addition is commutative, the toggling of columns takes place first, and we can apply the approach of Marius first to the columns and then to the rows.
In particular the toggling of the columns must make any row either all ones or all zeros. there are two possibilites:
Toggle columns such that every 1 in the first row becomes zero. If after this there is a row in which both ones and zeros occur, there is no solution. Otherwise apply the same approach for the rows (see below).
Toggle columns such that every 0 in the first row becomes 1. If after this there is a row in which both ones and zeros occur, there is no solution. Otherwise apply the same approach for the rows (see below).
Since the columns have been toggled successfully in the sense that in each row contains only ones or zeros, there are two possibilities:
Toggle rows such that every 1 in the first column becomes zero.
Toggle rows such that every 0 in the first row becomes zero.
Of course in the step for the rows, we take the possibility which results in less toggles, i.e. we count the ones in the first column and then decide how to toggle.
In total, only 2 cases have to be considered, namely how the columns are toggled; for the row step, the toggling can be decided by counting to minimuze the number of toggles in the second step.