I've obtained a solution, u from Gauss-Siedel (solving 2D Poisson's equation), and I want to plot it using trisurf. I can't, however, seem to understand how trisurf works (I have tried playing around with it, but with no luck). I've also taken a look at the Matlab documentation, but I don't understand what peaks is. Currently, I have something like this (but it doesn't work):
ss = a:h:b; %subspace
[X,Y] = meshgrid(ss,ss);
tri = delaunay(X,Y);
Z = peaks(ss);
trisurf(tri,X,Y,Z);
Where I plug in the solution values (the vector u)? And what types of values does peaks have to take in this context?
Details:
a = lower bound
b = upper bound
h = step size
u = solution
from Gauss-Siedel. Its size depends on the number of points I
evaluate on the mesh. The solution should converge as I It's obtained from running i many iterations.
First off, let me give you my output from whos
triangle_obj 1x1 540 TriScatteredInterp
u 15x1 120 double
X 15x1 120 double
Y 15x1 120 double
Try the approach below. I think you might find that this works for you (assuming that none of your points are collinear). You might have been confused because of the [X, Y] argument confusion in TriScatteredInterp.
triangle_obj = TriScatteredInterp([X, Y], u);
figure
trisurf(triangle_obj, X, Y, u);
Related
My experimental data points looks like pieces of hyperbola. Below I provide a code (Matlab), which generates "dummy" data, which is very similar to original one:
function [x_out,y_out,alpha1,alpha2,ecK,offsetX,offsetY,branchDirection] = dummyGenerator(mu_alpha)
alpha_range=0.1;
numberPoint2Return=100; % number of points to return
ecK=10.^((rand(1)-0.5)*2*2); % eccentricity-related parameter
% slope of the first asimptote (radians)
alpha1 = ((rand(1)-0.5)*alpha_range+mu_alpha);
% slope of the first asimptote (radians)
alpha2 = -((rand(1)-0.5)*alpha_range+mu_alpha);
beta = pi-abs(alpha1-alpha2); % angle between asimptotes (radians)
branchDirection = datasample([0,1],1); % where branch directed
% up: branchDirection==0;
% down: branchDirection==1;
% generate branch
x = logspace(-3,2,numberPoint2Return*100)'; %over sampling
y = (tan(pi/2-beta)*x+ecK./x);
% rotate branch using branchDirection
theta = -(pi/2-alpha1)-pi*branchDirection;
% get rotation matrix
rotM = [ cos(theta), -sin(theta);
sin(theta), cos(theta) ];
% get rotated coordinates
XY1=[x,y]*rotM;
x1=XY1(:,1); y1=XY1(:,2);
% remove possible Inf
x1(~isfinite(y1))=[];
y1(~isfinite(y1))=[];
% add noise
y1=((rand(numel(y1),1)-0.5)+y1);
% downsampling
%x_out=linspace(min(x1),max(x1),numberPoint2Return)';
x_out=linspace(-10,10,numberPoint2Return)';
y_out=interp1(x1,y1,x_out,'nearest');
% randomize offset
offsetX=(rand(1)-0.5)*50;
offsetY=(rand(1)-0.5)*50;
x_out=x_out+offsetX;
y_out=y_out+offsetY;
end
Typical results are presented on figure:
The data has following important property: slopes of both asymptotes comes from the same distribution (just different signs), so for my fitting I have rather goo estimation for mu_alpha.
Now starts the problematic part. I try to fit these data points. The main idea of my approach is to find a rotation to obtain y=k*x+b/x shape and then just fit it.
I use the following code:
function Rsquare = fitFunction(x,y,alpha1,alpha2,ecK,offsetX,offsetY)
R=[];
for branchDirection=[0 1]
% translate back
xt=x-offsetX;
yt=y-offsetY;
% rotate back
theta = (pi/2-alpha1)+pi*branchDirection;
rotM = [ cos(theta), -sin(theta);
sin(theta), cos(theta) ];
XY1=[xt,yt]*rotM;
x1=XY1(:,1); y1=XY1(:,2);
% get fitted values
beta = pi-abs(alpha1-alpha2);
%xf = logspace(-3,2,10^3)';
y1=y1(x1>0);
x1=x1(x1>0);
%x1=x1-min(x1);
xf=sort(x1);
yf=(tan(pi/2-beta)*xf+ecK./xf);
R(end+1)=sum((xf-x1).^2+(yf-y1).^2);
end
Rsquare=min(R);
end
Unfortunately this code works not good, very often I have bad results, even when I use known(from simulation) initial parameters.
Could You help me to find a good solution for such fitting problem?
UPDATE:
I find a solution (see Answer), but
I still have a small problem - my estimation of aparameter is bad, sometimes I did no have good fits because of this reason.
Could You suggest some ideas how to estimate a from experimental point?
I found the main problem (it was my brain as usually)! I did not know about general equation of hyperbola. So equation for my hyperbolas are:
((x-x0)/a).^2-((y-y0)/b).^2=-1
So ,we may not take care about sign, then I may use the following code:
mu_alpha=pi/6;
[x,y,alpha1,alpha2,ecK,offsetX,offsetY,branchDirection] = dummyGenerator(mu_alpha);
% hyperb=#(alpha,a,x0,y0) tan(alpha)*a*sqrt(((x-x0)/a).^2+1)+y0;
hyperb=#(x,P) tan(P(1))*P(2)*sqrt(((x-P(3))./P(2)).^2+1)+P(4);
cost =#(P) fitFunction(x,y,P);
x0=mean(x);
y0=mean(y);
a=(max(x)-min(x))./20;
P0=[mu_alpha,a,x0,y0];
[P,fval] = fminsearch(cost,P0);
hold all
plot(x,y,'-o')
plot(x,hyperb(x,P))
function Rsquare = fitFunction(x,y,P)
%x=sort(x);
yf=tan(P(1))*P(2)*sqrt(((x-P(3))./P(2)).^2+1)+P(4);
Rsquare=sum((yf-y).^2);
end
P.S. LaTex tags did not work for me
I am trying to plot contour of the Shifted Schwefel Problem function but keep having this error: Z must be size 2x2 or greater. I have searched on this forum and the information i have helped a little, but could not fix the above error. The information i got from this forum lead me to trying this code:
min = -50;
max = 50;
steps = 20;
c = linspace(min, max, steps); % Create the mesh
[x, y] = meshgrid(c, c); % Create the grid
%o=-50+100*rand(1,2);
%c = c - repmat(o,1,10);
for I=1:length(x)
for J=1:length(y)
o=-50+100*rand(1,2);
x=x-repmat(o,20,10);
f = max(abs(x), [], 2);
end
end
figure,
contour(x,y,f);
figure,
surfc(x, y,f);
Now i have error that z, which the the value of f most be atleast 2x2 or greater. I know my f is taking only one input and therefore will output only one. I tried having it in a nested for loops, but still giving me a array of vectors not matrix of atleast 2x2. if the input was two, then the problem will be fine, but the problem is, it is one input. Does anyone know how i can make this "f" output a matrix of atleast 2x2 so that i can plot the z of the contour?
There are a few things to note:
1.) As Jacob Robbins pointed out correctly in his comment, you should avoid using names from Matlab functions as variable names (in your case min and max). One very easy way to do this, is to use only upper case letters for variable names.
2.) You are correct in saying that your fis only one output (though one output in this case is not a single number, but a vector). That is, because you don't assign any indexing to it within the loop.
3.) Yes, both contour and surfc need at least 2x2 - because they plot information on a grid, which is itself at least 2x2 in nature.
4.) In your particular case, two loops may not be necessary. You seem to only be manipulating the x-vector and your grid is regular. Hence you might want to try this loop:
for I=1:length(x)
o=-50+100*rand(1,2);
x=x-repmat(o,20,10);
f(:,I) = max(abs(x), [], 2);
end
Now, f will be of size 20x20, which corresponds to your x- and y-grid. Also, now your contour and surfc command will produce plots.
5.) One last comment: The output of your function and the results of a web-search for "Shifted Schwefel function" are very different. But the question if your implementation of the Shifted Schwefel function is correct, should be asked as a new question.
I'd like to know exactly how this line of code works
corners = (m==n)&(n>threshold);
It's in a piece of code I'm using and I want to understand it. Basically, m and n are both equal-sized images, and "threshold" is a decimal value.
To understand the context, a segment of the code is below.
% compute the m cornerness measure
m = (ix2s.*iy2s - ixys.^2) - 0.04*(ix2s+iy2s).^2;
% perform non-maximal suppression using ordfilt2
n = ordfilt2(m, radius^2, ones([radius radius]));
% display corner spots
corners = (m==n)&(n>threshold);
% superimpose corners
Q = corners+im;
Q(Q>1) = 1;
C = repmat(im,[1 1 3]);
C(:,:,1) = Q;
If I understand correctly, n is the max of m ("cornerness measure") for the vicinity, so the line means - "if m is the local maximum and large enough(larger than threshold), then this is probably a corner", it could have arguably been more readable as:
corners = (m==n)&(m>threshold);
You should read more about Harris corner detector. Taken from Wikipedia:
This line is implementation of the function mentioned above. It is used to detect corners.
A-B-C-D are 4 points. We define r = length(B-C), angle, ang1 = (A-B-C) and angle ang2 = (B-C-D) and the torsion angle tors1 = (A-B-C-D). What I really need to do is to find the coordinates of C and D provided that I have the new values of r, ang1, ang2 and tors1.
The thing is that the points A and B are rigidly connected to each other, and points C and D are also connected to each other by a rigid connector, so to speak. That is the distance (C-D) remains fixed and also distance A-B remains fixed. There is no such rigid connection between the points B and C.
We have the old coordinates of the 4 points for some other set of (r,ang1,ang2,tors1) and we need to find the new coordinates when this defining set of variables changes to some arbitrary value.
I would be grateful for any helpful comments.
Thanks a lot.
I'm not allowed to post a picture because I'm a new user :(
Additional Info: An iterative solution is not going to be useful because I need to do this in a simulation "plenty of times O(10^6)".
I think the best way to approach this problem would be to think in terms of analytic geometry.
Each point A,B,C,D has some 3D coordinates (x,y,z) and you have some relationships between
them (e.g. distance B-C is equal to r means that
r = sqrt[ (x_b - x_c)^2 + (y_b - y_c)^2 + (z_b - z_c)^2 ]
Once you define such relations it remains to solve the resulting system of equations for the unknown values of coordinates of the points you need to determine.
This is a general approach, if you describe the problem better (maybe a picture?) it might be easy to find some efficient ways of solving such systems because of some special properties your problem has.
You haven't mentioned the coordinate system. Even if (r, a1, a2, t) don't change, the "coordinates" will change if the whole structure can be sent whirling off into space. So I'll make some assumptions:
Put B at the origin, C on the positive X axis and A in the XY plane with y>0. If you don't know the distance AB, calculate it from the old coordinates. Likewise CD.
A: (-AB cos(a1), AB sin(a1), 0)
B: (0, 0, 0)
C: (r, 0, 0)
D: (r + CD cos(a2), CD sin(a2) cos(t), CD sin(a2) sin(t))
(Just watch out for sign conventions in the angles.)
you are describing a set of constraints.
what you need to do is for every constraint check if they are still satisfied, and if not calc the most efficient way to get it correct again.
for instance, in case of length b-c=r if b-c is not r anymore, make it r again by moving both b and c to or from eachother so that the constraint is met again.
for every constraint one by one do this.
Then repeat a few times until the system has stabilized again (e.g. all constraints are met).
that's it
You are asking for a solution to a nonlinear system of equations. For the mathematically inclined, I will write out the constraint equations:
Suppose you have positions of points A,B,C,D. We define vectors AB=A-B, etc., and furthermore, we use the notation nAB to denote the normalized vector AB/|AB|. With this notation, we have:
AB.AB = fixed
CD.CD = fixed
CB.CB = r*r
nAB.nCB = cos(ang1)
nDC.nBC = cos(ang2)
Let E = D - DC.(nCB x nAB) // projection of D onto plane defined by ABC
nEC.nDC = cos(tors1)
nEC x nDC = sin(tors1) // not sure if your torsion angle is signed (if not, delete this)
where the dot (.) denotes dot product, and cross (x) denotes cross product.
Each point is defined by 3 coordinates, so there are 12 unknowns, and 6 constraint equations, leaving 6 degrees of freedom that are unconstrained. These are the 6 gauge DOFs from the translational and rotational invariance of the space.
Assuming you have old point positions A', B', C', and D', and you want to find a new solution which is "closest" (in a sense I defined) to those old positions, then you are solving an optimization problem:
minimize: AA'.AA' + BB'.BB' + CC'.CC' + DD'.DD'
subject to the 4-5 constraints above.
This optimization problem has no nice properties so you will want to use something like Conjugate Gradient descent to find a locally optimal solution with the starting guess being the old point positions. That is an iterative solution, which you said is unacceptable, but there is no direct solution unless you clarify your problem.
If this sounds good to you, I can elaborate on the nitty gritty of performing the numerical optimization.
This is a different solution than the one I gave already. Here I assume that the positions of A and B are not allowed to change (i.e. positions of A and B are constants), similar to Beta's solution. Note that there are still an infinite number of solutions, since we can rotate the structure around the axis defined by A-B and all your constraints are still satisfied.
Let the coordinates of A be A[0], A[1] and A[2], and similarly for B. You want explicit equations for C and D, as you mentioned in the response to Beta's solution, so here they are:
First find the position of C. As mentioned before, there are an infinite number of possibilities, so I will pick a good one for you.
Vector AB = A-B
Normalize(AB)
int best_i = 0;
for i = 1 to 2
if AB[i] < AB[best_i]
best_i = i
// best_i contains dimension in which AB is smallest
Vector N = Cross(AB, unit_vec[best_i]) // A good normal vector to AB
Normalize(N)
Vector T = Cross(N, AB) // AB, N, and T form an orthonormal frame
Normalize(T) // redundant, but just in case
C = B + r*AB*cos(ang1) + r*N*sin(ang1)
// Assume s is the known, fixed distance between C and D
// Update the frame
Vector BC = B-C, Normalize(BC)
N = Cross(BC, T), Normalize(N)
D = C + s*cos(tors1)*BC*cos(ang2) + s*cos(tors1)*N*sin(ang1) +/- s*sin(tors1)*T
That last plus or minus depends on how you define the orthonormal frame. Try one and see if it's what you want, otherwise it's the other sign. The notation above is pretty informal, but it gives a definite recipe for how to generate C and D from A, B, and your parameters. It also chooses a good C (which depends on a good, nondegenerate N). unit_vec[i] refers to the vector of all zeros, except for a 1 at index i. As usual, I have not tested the pseudocode above :)
I'm trying to add a fade effect to my form by manually changing the opacity of the form but I'm having some trouble calculating the correct value to increment by the Opacity value of the form.
I know I could use the AnimateWindow API but it's showing some unexpected behavior and I'd rather do it manually anyways as to avoid any p/invoke so I could use it in Mono later on.
My application supports speeds ranging from 1 to 10. And I've manually calculated that for a speed of 1 (slowest) I should increment the opacity by 0.005 and for a speed of 10 (fastest) I should increment by 0.1. As for the speeds between 1 and 10, I used the following expression to calculate the correct value:
double opSpeed = (((0.1 - 0.005) * (10 - X)) / (1 - 10)) + 0.1; // X = [1, 10]
I though this could give me a linear value and that that would be OK. However, for X equal 4 and above, it's already too fast. More than it should be. I mean, speeds between 7, and 10, I barely see a difference and the animation speed with these values should be a little more spaced
Note that I still want the fastest increment to be 0.1 and the slowest 0.005. But I need all the others to be linear between them.
What I'm doing wrong?
It actually makes sense why it works like this, for instance, for a fixed interval between increments, say a few milliseconds, and with the equation above, if X = 10, then opSpeed = 0.1 and if X = 5, then opSpeed = 0.47. If we think about this, a value of 0.1 will loop 10 times and a value of 0.47 will loop just the double. For such a small interval of just a few milliseconds, the difference between these values is not that much as to differentiate speeds from 5 to 10.
I think what you want is:
0.005 + ((0.1-0.005)/9)*(X-1)
for X ranging from 1-10
This gives a linear scale corresponding to 0.005 when X = 1 and 0.1 when X = 10
After the comments below, I'm also including my answer fit for a geometric series instead of a linear scale.
0.005 * (20^((X-1)/9)))
Results in a geometric variation corresponding to 0.005 when X = 1 and 0.1 when X = 10
After much more discussion, as seen in the comments below, the updates are as follows.
#Nazgulled found the following relation between my geometric series and the manual values he actually needed to ensure smooth fade animation.
The relationship was as follows:
Which means a geometric/exponential series is the way to go.
After my hours of trying to come up with the appropriate curve fitting to the right hand side graph and derive a proper equation, #Nazgulled informed me that Wolfram|Alpha does that. Seriously amazing. :)
Wolfram Alpha link
He should have what he wants now, barring very high error from the equation above.
Your problem stems from the fact that the human eye is not linear in its response; to be precise, the eye does not register the difference between a luminosity of 0.05 to 0.10 to be the same as the luminosity difference between 0.80 and 0.85. The whole topic is complicated; you may want to search for the phrase "gamma correction" for some additional information. In general, you'll probably want to find an equation which effectively "gamma corrects" for human ocular response, and use that as your fading function.
It's not really an answer, but I'll just point out that everyone who's posted so far, including the original question, are all posting the same equation. So with four independent derivations, maybe we should assume that the equation was probably correct.
I did the algebra, but here's the code to verify (in Python, btw, with offsets added to separate the curves:
from pylab import *
X = arange(1, 10, .1)
opSpeed0 = (((0.1 - 0.005) * (10 - X)) / (1 - 10)) + 0.1 # original
opSpeed1 = 0.005 + ((0.1-0.005)/9)*(X-1) # Suvesh
opSpeed2 = 0.005*((10-X)/9.) + 0.1*(X-1)/9. # duffymo
a = (0.1 - 0.005) / 9 #= 0.010555555555... # Roger
b = 0.005 - a #= -0.00555555555...
opSpeed3 = a*X+b
nonlinear01 = 0.005*2**((2*(-1 + X))/9.)*5**((-1 + X)/9.)
plot(X, opSpeed0)
plot(X, opSpeed1+.001)
plot(X, opSpeed2+.002)
plot(X, opSpeed3+.003)
plot(X, nonlinear01)
show()
Also, at Nazgulled's request, I've included the non-linear curve suggested by Suvesh (which also, btw, looks quite alot like a gamma correction curve, as suggested by McWafflestix). The Suvesh's nonlinear equation is in the code as nonlinear01.
Here's how I'd program that linear relationship. But first I'd like to make clear what I think you're doing.
You want the rate of change in opacity to be a linear function of speed:
o(v) = o1*N1(v) + o2*N2(v) so that 0 <= v <=1 and o(v1) = o1 and o(v2) = o2.
If we choose N1(v) to equal 1-v and N2(v) = v we end up with what you want:
o(v) = o1*(1-v) + o2*v
So, plugging in your values:
v = (u-1)/(10-1) = (u-1)/9
o1 = 0.005 and o2 = 0.1
So the function should look like this:
o(u) = 0.005*{1-(u-1)/9} + 0.1*(u-1)/9
o(u) = 0.005*{(9-u+1)/9} + 0.1*(u-1)/9
o(u) = 0.005*{(10-u)/9} + 0.1(u-1)/9
You can simplify this until you get a simple formula for o(u) where 1 <= u <= 10. Should work fine.
If I understand what you're after, you want the equation of a line which passes through these two points in the plane: (1, 0.005) and (10, 0.1). The general equation for such a line (as long as it is not vertical) is y = ax+b. Plug the two points into this equation and solve the resulting set of two linear equations to get
a = (0.1 - 0.005) / 9 = 0.010555555555...
b = 0.005 - a = -0.00555555555...
Then, for each integer x = 1, 2, 3, ..., 10, plug x into y = ax+b to compute y, the value you want.