Related
I'm writing an algorithm for sclera detection on grayscale images and I found a formula that I cannot explain how it works. Here is the paper segment I'm trying to use:
Here it says that I should use the HSL information of the image and calculate 3 thresholds for the 3 components which I later use for thresholding. The problem is that I cannot make any sense of the notation arg{t|min| ...} as they are not explained at all in the paper.
I deduced how the sum works and that I should have a constant at the end of the computation of the sum, but what does this previosuly mentioned operator do with the constant gathered from the sum I cannot find anywhere.
I tried to search for the meaning of the arg notation, but this wikipedia page doesn't seem to give me any answers: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_(complex_analysis)
Here they say that the result of the operation is the angle of the complex number, however I don't have any complex numbers, therefore if I consider a real number as complex my angle will always be 0.
Can anyone explain what should this operation do?
arg in this case means the argument of the function that gives the minimum value:
e.g .
m=arg{min f(x)}
is the x value for which the function f achieves its minimum value.
It's a standard notation in image classification etc. If you look at this you will see it https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_a_posteriori_estimation
I have the following question on a practice exam:
I need to use MATLAB to solve it. The problem is, I have not seen a problem like this before and I'm struggling to get started.
I have my 1x1 grid, split into 10x10. I know I can calculate the whole bottom row besides the corners using 1/10 * x*2. I also know I can calculate the entire right row using (1/10)(1+t)^2. However, I cannot figure out how to get enough points to be able to fill in the values for the entire grid. I know it must have something to do with the partial derivatives given in the problem, but I'm not quite sure where they come into play (especially the u_x equation). Can someone help me get a start here?
I don't need the whole solution. Once I have enough points I can easily write a matlab program to solve the rest. Really, I think I just need the x=0 axis solved, then I just fill in the middle of the grid.
I have calculated the bottom row, minus the two corners, to be 0.001, 0.004, 0.009, 0.016, 0.025, 0.036, 0.049, 0.064, 0.081. And similarly, the entire right row is trival to calculate using the given boundry condition. I just can't piece together where to go from there.
Edit: the third boundry condition equation was mistyped. it should read:
u_x(0,t) = 1/5t, NOT u(0,t) = 1/5t
First realise that the equation you have to solve is the linear wave equation, and the numerical scheme you are given can be rewritten as
( u^(n+1)_m - 2u^n_m + u^(n-1)_m )/k^2 = ( u^n_(m-1) - 2u^n_m + u^n_(m+1) )/h^2
where k is the time step and h is the delta x in space.
The reformulated numerical scheme makes clear that the left- and right-hand sides are the second order centred finite difference approximations of u_tt and u_xx respectively.
To solve the problem numerically, however, you need to use the form given to you because it is the explicit update formula that you need to implement numerically: it gives you the solution at time n+1 as a function of the previous two times n and n-1. You need to start from the initial condition and march the solution in time.
Observe that the solution is assigned on the boundaries of the domain (x=0 and x=1), so the values of the discretized solution u^(n)_0 and u^(n)_10 are known for any n (t=n*k). At the nth time step your unknown is the vector [u^(n+1)_1, u^(n+1)_2, ..., u^(n+1)_9].
Observe also that to use the update formula to find the solution at the n+1 step, requires the knowledge of the solution at two previous steps. So, how do you start from n=0 if you need information from two previous times? This is where the initial conditions come into play.
You have the solution at n=0 (t=0), but you also have u_t at t=0. These two pieces of information combined can give you both u^0 and u^1 and get you started.
I would use the following start-up scheme:
u^0_m = u(h*m,0) // initial condition on u
(u^2_m - u^0_m)/(2k) = u_t(h*m,0) // initial condition on u_t
that combined with the numerical scheme used with n=1 gives you everything you need to define a linear system for both u^1_m and u^2_m for m=1,...,9.
To summarize:
--use the start-up scheme to find solution at n=1 and n=2 simultaneously.
--from there on march in time using the numerical scheme you are given.
If you are completely lost check out things like: finite difference schemes, finite difference schemes for advection equations, finite difference schemes for hyperbolic equations, time marching.
EDITING:
For the boundary condition on u_x you typically use the ghost cell method:
Introduce a ghost cell at m=-1, i.e. a fictitious (or auxiliary) grid point that is used to deal with boundary condition, but that is not part of the solution.
The first node m=0 is back into your unknown vector, i.e. you are now working with [u_0 u_1 ... u_9].
Use the left side boundary condition to close the system.
Specifically, by writing down the centered approx of the boundary condition
u^n_(1) - u^n_(-1) = 2*h*u_x(0,k*n)
The above equation allows you to express the solution on the ghost node in terms on the solution on an internal, real node. Therefore you can apply the time-marching numerical scheme (the one you are given) to the m=0 node. (The numerical scheme applied to m=0 would contain contributions from the m=-1 ghost node, but now you have that expressed in terms of the m=1 node.)
I have a optimzation problem i'm trying to solve using a genetic algorithm. Basically, there is a list of 10 bound real valued variables (-1 <= x <= 1), and I need to maximize some function of that list. The catch is that only up to 4 variables in the list may be != 0 (subset condition).
Mathematically speaking:
For some function f: [-1, 1]^10 -> R
min f(X)
s.t.
|{var in X with var != 0}| <= 4
Some background on f: The function is NOT similar to any kind of knapsack objective function like Sum x*weight or anything like that.
What I have tried so far:
Just a basic genetic algorithm over the genome [-1, 1]^10 with 1-point-crossover and some gaussian mutation on the variables. I tried to encode the subset condition in the fitness function by using just the first 4 nonzero (zero as in close enough to 0) values. This approach doesn't work that well and the algorithm is stuck at the 4 first variables and never uses values beyond that. I saw some kind of GA for the 01-knapsack problem where this approach worked well, but apparently this works just with binary variables.
What would you recommend me to try next?
If your fitness function is quick and dirty to evaluate then it's cheap to increase your total population size.
The problem you are running into is that you're trying to select two completely different things simultaneously. You want to select which 4 genomes you care about, and then what values are optimal.
I see two ways to do this.
You create 210 different "species". Each specie is defined by which 4 of the 10 genomes they are allowed to use. Then you can run a genetic algorithm on each specie separately (either serially, or in parallel within a cluster).
Each organism has only 4 genome values (when creating random offspring choose which genomes at random). When two organisms mate you only cross over with genomes that match. If your pair of organisms contain 3 common genomes then you could randomly pick which of the genome you may prefer as the 4th. You could also, as a heuristic, avoid mating organisms that appear to be too genetically different (i.e. a pair that shares two or fewer genomes may make for a bad offspring).
I hope that gives you some ideas you can work from.
You could try a "pivot"-style step: choose one of the existing nonzero values to become zero, and replace it by setting one of the existing zero values to become nonzero. (My "pivot" term comes from linear programming, in which a pivot is the basic step in the simplex method).
Simplest case would be to be evenhandedly random in the selection of each of these values; you can choose a random value, or multiple values, for the new nonzero variable. A more local kind of step would be to use a Gaussian step only on the existing nonzero variables, but if one of those variables crosses zero, spawn variations that pivot to one of the zero values. (Note that these are not mutually exclusive, as you can easily add both kinds of steps).
If you have any information about the local behavior of your fitness score, you can try to use that to guide your choice. Just because actual evolution doesn't look at the fitness function, doesn't mean you can't...
Does your GA solve the problem well without the subset constraint? If not, you might want to tackle that first.
Secondly, you might make your constraint soft instead of hard: Penalize a solution's fitness for each zero-valued variable it has, beyond 4. (You might start by loosening the constraint even further, allowing 9 0-valued variables, then 8, etc., and making sure the GA is able to handle those problem variants before making the problem more difficult.)
Thirdly, maybe try 2-point or multi-point crossover instead of 1-point.
Hope that helps.
-Ted
I do not know a whole lot about math, so I don't know how to begin to google what I am looking for, so I rely on the intelligence of experts to help me understand what I am after...
I am trying to find the smallest string of equations for a particular large number. For example given the number
"39402006196394479212279040100143613805079739270465446667948293404245721771497210611414266254884915640806627990306816"
The smallest equation is 64^64 (that I know of) . It contains only 5 bytes.
Basically the program would reverse the math, instead of taking an expression and finding an answer, it takes an answer and finds the most simplistic expression. Simplistic is this case means smallest string, not really simple math.
Has this already been created? If so where can I find it? I am looking to take extremely HUGE numbers (10^10000000) and break them down to hopefully expressions that will be like 100 characters in length. Is this even possible? are modern CPUs/GPUs not capable of doing such big calculations?
Edit:
Ok. So finding the smallest equation takes WAY too much time, judging on answers. Is there anyway to bruteforce this and get the smallest found thus far?
For example given a number super super large. Sometimes taking the sqaureroot of number will result in an expression smaller than the number itself.
As far as what expressions it would start off it, well it would naturally try expressions that would the expression the smallest. I am sure there is tons of math things I dont know, but one of the ways to make a number a lot smaller is powers.
Just to throw another keyword in your Google hopper, see Kolmogorov Complexity. The Kolmogorov complexity of a string is the size of the smallest Turing machine that outputs the string, given an empty input. This is one way to formalize what you seem to be after. However, calculating the Kolmogorov complexity of a given string is known to be an undecidable problem :)
Hope this helps,
TJ
There's a good program to do that here:
http://mrob.com/pub/ries/index.html
I asked the question "what's the point of doing this", as I don't know if you're looking at this question from a mathemetics point of view, or a large number factoring point of view.
As other answers have considered the factoring point of view, I'll look at the maths angle. In particular, the problem you are describing is a compressibility problem. This is where you have a number, and want to describe it in the smallest algorithm. Highly random numbers have very poor compressibility, as to describe them you either have to write out all of the digits, or describe a deterministic algorithm which is only slightly smaller than the number itself.
There is currently no general mathemetical theorem which can determine if a representation of a number is the smallest possible for that number (although a lower bound can be discovered by understanding shannon's information theory). (I said general theorem, as special cases do exist).
As you said you don't know a whole lot of math, this is perhaps not a useful answer for you...
You're doing a form of lossless compression, and lossless compression doesn't work on random data. Suppose, to the contrary, that you had a way of compressing N-bit numbers into N-1-bit numbers. In that case, you'd have 2^N values to compress into 2^N-1 designations, which is an average of 2 values per designation, so your average designation couldn't be uncompressed. Lossless compression works well on relatively structured data, where data we're likely to get is compressed small, and data we aren't going to get actually grows some.
It's a little more complicated than that, since you're compressing partly by allowing more information per character. (There are a greater number of N-character sequences involving digits and operators than digits alone.) Still, you're not going to get lossless compression that, on the average, is better than just writing the whole numbers in binary.
It looks like you're basically wanting to do factoring on an arbitrarily large number. That is such a difficult problem that it actually serves as the cornerstone of modern-day cryptography.
This really appears to be a mathematics problem, and not programming or computer science problem. You should ask this on https://math.stackexchange.com/
While your question remains unclear, perhaps integer relation finding is what you are after.
EDIT:
There is some speculation that finding a "short" form is somehow related to the factoring problem. I don't believe that is true unless your definition requires a product as the answer. Consider the following pseudo-algorithm which is just sketch and for which no optimization is attempted.
If "shortest" is a well-defined concept, then in general you get "short" expressions by using small integers to large powers. If N is my integer, then I can find an integer nearby that is 0 mod 4. How close? Within +/- 2. I can find an integer within +/- 4 that is 0 mod 8. And so on. Now that's just the powers of 2. I can perform the same exercise with 3, 5, 7, etc. We can, for example, easily find the nearest integer that is simultaneously the product of powers of 2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13, and 17, call it N_1. Now compute N-N_1, call it d_1. Maybe d_1 is "short". If so, then N_1 (expressed as power of the prime) + d_1 is the answer. If not, recurse to find a "short" expression for d_1.
We can also pick integers that are maybe farther away than our first choice; even though the difference d_1 is larger, it might have a shorter form.
The existence of an infinite number of primes means that there will always be numbers that cannot be simplified by factoring. What you're asking for is not possible, sorry.
Imagine, there are two same-sized sets of numbers.
Is it possible, and how, to create a function an algorithm or a subroutine which exactly maps input items to output items? Like:
Input = 1, 2, 3, 4
Output = 2, 3, 4, 5
and the function would be:
f(x): return x + 1
And by "function" I mean something slightly more comlex than [1]:
f(x):
if x == 1: return 2
if x == 2: return 3
if x == 3: return 4
if x == 4: return 5
This would be be useful for creating special hash functions or function approximations.
Update:
What I try to ask is to find out is whether there is a way to compress that trivial mapping example from above [1].
Finding the shortest program that outputs some string (sequence, function etc.) is equivalent to finding its Kolmogorov complexity, which is undecidable.
If "impossible" is not a satisfying answer, you have to restrict your problem. In all appropriately restricted cases (polynomials, rational functions, linear recurrences) finding an optimal algorithm will be easy as long as you understand what you're doing. Examples:
polynomial - Lagrange interpolation
rational function - Pade approximation
boolean formula - Karnaugh map
approximate solution - regression, linear case: linear regression
general packing of data - data compression; some techniques, like run-length encoding, are lossless, some not.
In case of polynomial sequences, it often helps to consider the sequence bn=an+1-an; this reduces quadratic relation to linear one, and a linear one to a constant sequence etc. But there's no silver bullet. You might build some heuristics (e.g. Mathematica has FindSequenceFunction - check that page to get an impression of how complex this can get) using genetic algorithms, random guesses, checking many built-in sequences and their compositions and so on. No matter what, any such program - in theory - is infinitely distant from perfection due to undecidability of Kolmogorov complexity. In practice, you might get satisfactory results, but this requires a lot of man-years.
See also another SO question. You might also implement some wrapper to OEIS in your application.
Fields:
Mostly, the limits of what can be done are described in
complexity theory - describing what problems can be solved "fast", like finding shortest path in graph, and what cannot, like playing generalized version of checkers (they're EXPTIME-complete).
information theory - describing how much "information" is carried by a random variable. For example, take coin tossing. Normally, it takes 1 bit to encode the result, and n bits to encode n results (using a long 0-1 sequence). Suppose now that you have a biased coin that gives tails 90% of time. Then, it is possible to find another way of describing n results that on average gives much shorter sequence. The number of bits per tossing needed for optimal coding (less than 1 in that case!) is called entropy; the plot in that article shows how much information is carried (1 bit for 1/2-1/2, less than 1 for biased coin, 0 bits if the coin lands always on the same side).
algorithmic information theory - that attempts to join complexity theory and information theory. Kolmogorov complexity belongs here. You may consider a string "random" if it has large Kolmogorov complexity: aaaaaaaaaaaa is not a random string, f8a34olx probably is. So, a random string is incompressible (Volchan's What is a random sequence is a very readable introduction.). Chaitin's algorithmic information theory book is available for download. Quote: "[...] we construct an equation involving only whole numbers and addition, multiplication and exponentiation, with the property that if one varies a parameter and asks whether the number of solutions is finite or infinite, the answer to this question is indistinguishable from the result of independent tosses of a fair coin." (in other words no algorithm can guess that result with probability > 1/2). I haven't read that book however, so can't rate it.
Strongly related to information theory is coding theory, that describes error-correcting codes. Example result: it is possible to encode 4 bits to 7 bits such that it will be possible to detect and correct any single error, or detect two errors (Hamming(7,4)).
The "positive" side are:
symbolic algorithms for Lagrange interpolation and Pade approximation are a part of computer algebra/symbolic computation; von zur Gathen, Gerhard "Modern Computer Algebra" is a good reference.
data compresssion - here you'd better ask someone else for references :)
Ok, I don't understand your question, but I'm going to give it a shot.
If you only have 2 sets of numbers and you want to find f where y = f(x), then you can try curve-fitting to give you an approximate "map".
In this case, it's linear so curve-fitting would work. You could try different models to see which works best and choose based on minimizing an error metric.
Is this what you had in mind?
Here's another link to curve-fitting and an image from that article:
It seems to me that you want a hashtable. These are based in hash functions and there are known hash functions that work better than others depending on the expected input and desired output.
If what you want a algorithmic way of mapping arbitrary input to arbitrary output, this is not feasible in the general case, as it totally depends on the input and output set.
For example, in the trivial sample you have there, the function is immediately obvious, f(x): x+1. In others it may be very hard or even impossible to generate an exact function describing the mapping, you would have to approximate or just use directly a map.
In some cases (such as your example), linear regression or similar statistical models could find the relation between your input and output sets.
Doing this in the general case is arbitrarially difficult. For example, consider a block cipher used in ECB mode: It maps an input integer to an output integer, but - by design - deriving any general mapping from specific examples is infeasible. In fact, for a good cipher, even with the complete set of mappings between input and output blocks, you still couldn't determine how to calculate that mapping on a general basis.
Obviously, a cipher is an extreme example, but it serves to illustrate that there's no (known) general procedure for doing what you ask.
Discerning an underlying map from input and output data is exactly what Neural Nets are about! You have unknowingly stumbled across a great branch of research in computer science.