Related
I'm trying to write a short piece of code that will perform propagation of errors. So far, I can get Mathematica to generate the formula for the error delta_f in a function f(x1,x2,...,xi,...,xn) with errors dx1,dx2,...,dxi,...dxn:
fError[f_, xi__, dxi__] :=
Sum[(D[f[xi], xi[[i]]]*dxi[[i]])^2, {i, 1, Length[xi]}]^(1/2)
where fError requires that the input function f has all of its variables surrounded by {...}. For example,
d[{mv_, Mv_, Av_}] := 10^(1/5 (mv - Mv + 5 - Av))
FullSimplify[fError[d, {mv, Mv, Av}, {dmv, dMv, dAv}]]
returns
2 Sqrt[10^(-(2/5) (Av - mv + Mv)) (dAv^2 + dmv^2 + dMv^2)] Log[10]
My question is, how can I evaluate this? Ideally I would like to modify fError to something like:
fError[f_, xi__, nxi__, dxi__]
where nxi is the list of actual values of xi (separated since setting the xi's to their numerical values will destroy the differentiation step above.) This function should find the general formula for the error delta_f and then evaluate it numerically, if possible. I think the solution should be as simple as a Hold[] or With[] or something like that, but I can't seem to get it.
I'm not following everything that you've done, and since this was posted two years ago it's likely you aren't working on it anymore anyways. I'll give you my solution for error propagation in hopes that it will somehow help you or others.
I tried to include the best documentation that I could in the video and files linked below. If you open the .cdf file and weed through it you should be able to see my code...
Files:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzKVw6gFYxk_YUk4a25ZRFpKaU0/view?pli=1
Video Tutorial:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1aM_oSIN7w
-Brian
Edit:
I posted the links because I couldn't attach files and didn't want to post code with no documentation for people new to mathematica. Here's the code directly. I would encourage anyone finding this solution helpful to take a quick look at the documentation because it demonstrates some tricks to improve productivity.
Manipulate[
varlist = ToExpression[variables];
funct = ToExpression[function];
errorFunction[variables, function]
, {variables, "{M,m}"}, {function, "g*(M-m)/(M+m)"},
DisplayAllSteps -> True, LabelStyle -> {FontSize -> 17},
AutoAction -> False,
Initialization :> (
errorFunction[v_, f_] := (
varlist = ToExpression[v];
funct = ToExpression[f];
varlength = Length[Variables[varlist]];
theoretical =
Sqrt[(Total[
Table[(D[funct, Part[varlist, n]]*
Subscript[U, Part[varlist, n]])^2, {n, 1,
varlength}]])];
Part[theoretical, 1];
varlist;
uncert = Table[Subscript[U, Part[varlist, n]], {n, 1, varlength}];
uncert = DeleteCases[uncert, Alternatives ## {0}];
theoretical = Simplify[theoretical];
Column[{Row[{Grid[{
{"Variables", varlist},
{"Uncertainties", uncert},
{"Function", function},
{"Uncertainty Function", theoretical}}, Alignment -> Left,
Spacings -> {2, 1}, Frame -> All,
ItemStyle -> {"Text", FontSize -> 20},
Background -> {{LightGray, None}}]}],
Row[{
Grid[{{"Brian Gennow March/24/2015"}}, Alignment -> Left,
Spacings -> {2, 1}, ItemStyle -> "Text",
Background -> {{None}}]
}]}]))]
This question was posted over 5 years ago, but I ran into the same issue recently and thought I'd share my solution (for uncorrelated errors).
I define a function errorProp that takes two arguments, func and vars. The first argument of errorProp, func, is the symbolic form of the expression for which you wish to calculate the error of its value due to the errors of its arguments. The second argument for errorProp should be a list of the form
{{x1,x1 value, dx1, dx1 value},{x2,x2 value, dx2, dx2 value}, ... ,
{xn,xn value, dxn, dxn value}}
Where the xi's and dxi's are the symbolic representations of the variables and their errors, while the xi value and dxi value are the numerical values of the variable and its uncertainty (see below for an example).
The function errorProp returns the symbolic form of the error, the value of the input function func, and the value of the error of func calculated from the inputs in vars. Here is the code:
ClearAll[errorProp];
errorProp[func_, vars_] := Module[{derivs=Table[0,{Length[vars]}],
funcErrorForm,funcEval,funcErrorEval,rplcVals,rplcErrors},
For[ii = 1, ii <= Length[vars], ii++,
derivs[[ii]] = D[func, vars[[ii, 1]]];
];
funcErrorForm = Sqrt[Sum[(derivs[[ii]]*vars[[ii, 3]])^2,{ii,Length[vars]}]];
SetAttributes[rplcVals, Listable];
rplcVals = Table[Evaluate[vars[[ii, 1]]] :> Evaluate[vars[[ii, 2]]], {ii,
Length[vars]}];
SetAttributes[rplcErrors, Listable];
rplcErrors = Table[Evaluate[vars[[ii, 3]]] :> Evaluate[vars[[ii, 4]]], {ii,
Length[vars]}];
funcEval = func /. rplcVals;
funcErrorEval = funcErrorForm /. rplcVals /. rplcErrors;
Return[{funcErrorForm, funcEval, funcErrorEval}];
];
Here I show an example of errorProp in action with a reasonably complicated function of two variables:
ClearAll[test];
test = Exp[Sqrt[1/y] - x/y];
errorProp[test, {{x, 0.3, dx, 0.005}, {y, 0.9, dy, 0.1}}]
returns
{Sqrt[dy^2 E^(2 Sqrt[1/y] - (2 x)/y) (-(1/2) (1/y)^(3/2) + x/y^2)^2 + (
dx^2 E^(2 Sqrt[1/y] - (2 x)/y))/y^2], 2.05599, 0.0457029}
Calculating using the error propagation formula returns the same result:
{Sqrt[(D[test, x]*dx)^2 + (D[test, y]*dy)^2],
test /. {x :> 0.3, dx :> 0.005, y :> 0.9, dy :> 0.1},
Sqrt[(D[test, x]*dx)^2 + (D[test, y]*dy)^2] /. {x :> 0.3,
dx :> 0.005, y :> 0.9, dy :> 0.1}}
returns
{Sqrt[dy^2 E^(
2 Sqrt[1/y] - (2 x)/y) (-(1/2) (1/y)^(3/2) + x/y^2)^2 + (
dx^2 E^(2 Sqrt[1/y] - (2 x)/y))/y^2], 2.05599, 0.0457029}
Mathematica 12 introduced the Around function that handles error propagation using the differential method.
So although not quite in the format required in the question, but something like this is possible:
expression = a^2*b;
expression /. {a -> Around[aval, da], b -> Around[bval, db]}
output:
aval^2 bval ± Sqrt[aval^4 db^2+4 bval^2 Abs[aval da]^2]
Instead of aval, bval, da, db you can use numerical values as well.
I have a question about NDSolve function in Mathematica.
I have an oscillator defined by these two equations:
x' = v
v' = -x - u*v^3
where u is some constant.
How to create an NDSolve that resolves this? I tried following code (it has to depend on time) but it doesnt work:
eq1 = x'[t] == v;
eq2 = v' == -x[t] - u*v^3;
eq3 = x[0] == 2;
(initial displacement is 2m).
s = NDSolve[{eq1, eq2, eq3}, x, {t, 0, 30}]
Thank you very much...
You need to observe that the first equation once differentiated with respect to t can be used to substitute for v[t]. But then the second equation becomes a ODE of second order and requires to be supplied with another extra initial condition. We will give
v[0]==x'[0]==some number
Then after solving this ODE for x you can recover v[t]==x'[t]
I give you the solution in term of a Manipulate so that geometrically the situation becomes clear to you.
(* First equation *)
v[t] = x'[t];
(*
Differentiate this equation once and substitute
for v[t] in the second equation
*)
Manipulate[
With[{u = Constant, der = derval},
res = NDSolve[{x''[t] == -x[t] - u*x'[t]^3, x[0.] == 2,x'[0.] == der},
x, {t, 0., 30.}] // First;
Plot[Evaluate[{x[t], v[t]} /. res], {t, 0, 30}, PlotRange -> All,
Frame -> True,Axes -> None, ImageSize -> 600]
],
{{Constant, 0.,TraditionalForm#(u)}, 0.,3, .1},
{{derval, -3., TraditionalForm#(v[0] == x'[0])}, -3, 3, .1}
]
Hope this helps you but next time before you ask you need to brush up the theory first as you can see the question you asked concerns very basic and elementary Mathematics not Mathematica programming. Good luck!!
You need to specify a numeric value for your u as well as an initial condition for v[t] :
u=1.0;
solution=NDSolve[{x'[t]==v[t], v'[t]==-x[t]-u v[t]^3,x[0]==2,v[0]==-1},{x,v},{t,0,1}]
Plot[{solution[[1,1,2]][t],solution[[1,2,2]][t]},{t,0,1}]
For example, I have symbollically
1/n*Sum[ee[k] + 1, {k, j, n}]^2
And I want to substitute Sum[ee[k], {k, j+1, n}] to be x. How can I do this? May thanks for your help!
You may use the recurrence relation for the sum. For example:
f[j] := f[j + 1] + (ee[j] + 1);
1/N f[j]^2 /. f[j + 1] -> x
Out
(1 + x + ee[j])^2/N
Edit
Based on several questions you posted, I think you are somehow misinterpreting what the Replace[] command does. It is not "algebraic" based, but "pattern" based. It doesn't understand nor use more algebraic transformations than those already defined (by you or by Mma itself).
For example:
x/. (x-1)->y
will not match anything. But
(x-1) /. x->y-1
Will give you (y-2) because the pattern x is matched.
Moreover:
x = 3;
(x - 1) /. x -> y - 1
will give you 2 because x is evaluated before the possible match, and the x in the pattern is also evaluated (just paste, execute and look at the symbol color).
1/N*Sum[ee[k] + 1, {k, j, N}]^2 /. Sum[ee[k] + 1, {k, j, N}] -> x
Doesn't that work, or do I misunderstand? By the way, you shouldn't use N as a variable. It's a Mathematica function.
I need to find the minimum of a function f(t) = int g(t,x) dx over [0,1]. What I did in mathematica is as follows:
f[t_] = NIntegrate[g[t,x],{x,-1,1}]
FindMinimum[f[t],{t,t0}]
However mathematica halts at the first try, because NIntegrate does not work with the symbolic t. It needs a specific value to evaluate. Although Plot[f[t],{t,0,1}] works perferctly, FindMinimum stops at the initial point.
I cannot replace NIntegrate by Integrate, because the function g is a bit complicated and if you type Integrate, mathematica just keep running...
Any way to get around it? Thanks!
Try this:
In[58]:= g[t_, x_] := t^3 - t + x^2
In[59]:= f[t_?NumericQ] := NIntegrate[g[t, x], {x, -1, 1}]
In[60]:= FindMinimum[f[t], {t, 1}]
Out[60]= {-0.103134, {t -> 0.57735}}
In[61]:= Plot[f[t], {t, 0, 1}]
Two relevant changes I made to your code:
Define f with := instead of with =. This effectively gives a definition for f "later", when the user of f has supplied the values of the arguments. See SetDelayed.
Define f with t_?NumericQ instead of t_. This says, t can be anything numeric (Pi, 7, 0, etc). But not anything non-numeric (t, x, "foo", etc).
An ounce of analysis...
You can get an exact answer and completely avoid the heavy lifting of the numerical integration, as long as Mathematica can do symbolic integration of g[t,x] w.r.t x and then symbolic differentiation w.r.t. t. A less trivial example with a more complicated g[t,x] including polynomial products in x and t:
g[t_, x_] := t^2 + (7*t*x - (x^3)/13)^2;
xMax = 1; xMin = -1; f[t_?NumericQ] := NIntegrate[g[t, x], {x, xMin, xMax}];
tMin = 0; tMax = 1;Plot[f[t], {t, tMin, tMax}];
tNumericAtMin = t /. FindMinimum[f[t], {t, tMax}][[2]];
dig[t_, x_] := D[Integrate[g[t, x], x], t];
Print["Differentiated integral is ", dig[t, x]];
digAtXMax = dig[t, x] /. x -> xMax; digAtXMin = dig[t, x] /. x -> xMin;
tSymbolicAtMin = Resolve[digAtXMax - digAtXMin == 0 && tMin ≤ t ≤ tMax, {t}];
Print["Exact: ", tSymbolicAtMin[[2]]];
Print["Numeric: ", tNumericAtMin];
Print["Difference: ", tSymbolicAtMin [[2]] - tNumericAtMin // N];
with the result:
⁃Graphics⁃
Differentiated integral is 2 t x + 98 t x^3 / 3 - 14 x^5 / 65
Exact: 21/3380
Numeric: 0.00621302
Difference: -3.01143 x 10^-9
Minimum of the function can be only at zero-points of it's derivate, so why to integrate in the first place?
You can use FindRoot or Solve to find roots of g
Then you can verify that points are really local minimums by checking derivates of g (it should be positive at that point).
Then you can NIntegrate to find minimum value of f - only one numerical integration!
I'm trying to figure out how to use Mathematica to solve systems of equations where some of the variables and coefficients are vectors. A simple example would be something like
where I know A, V, and the magnitude of P, and I have to solve for t and the direction of P. (Basically, given two rays A and B, where I know everything about A but only the origin and magnitude of B, figure out what the direction of B must be such that it intersects A.)
Now, I know how to solve this sort of thing by hand, but that's slow and error-prone, so I was hoping I could use Mathematica to speed things along and error-check me. However, I can't see how to get Mathematica to symbolically solve equations involving vectors like this.
I've looked in the VectorAnalysis package, without finding anything there that seems relevant; meanwhile the Linear Algebra package only seems to have a solver for linear systems (which this isn't, since I don't know t or P, just |P|).
I tried doing the simpleminded thing: expanding the vectors into their components (pretend they're 3D) and solving them as if I were trying to equate two parametric functions,
Solve[
{ Function[t, {Bx + Vx*t, By + Vy*t, Bz + Vz*t}][t] ==
Function[t, {Px*t, Py*t, Pz*t}][t],
Px^2 + Py^2 + Pz^2 == Q^2 } ,
{ t, Px, Py, Pz }
]
but the "solution" that spits out is a huge mess of coefficients and congestion. It also forces me to expand out each of the dimensions I feed it.
What I want is a nice symbolic solution in terms of dot products, cross products, and norms:
But I can't see how to tell Solve that some of the coefficients are vectors instead of scalars.
Is this possible? Can Mathematica give me symbolic solutions on vectors? Or should I just stick with No.2 Pencil technology?
(Just to be clear, I'm not interested in the solution to the particular equation at top -- I'm asking if I can use Mathematica to solve computational geometry problems like that generally without my having to express everything as an explicit matrix of {Ax, Ay, Az}, etc.)
With Mathematica 7.0.1.0
Clear[A, V, P];
A = {1, 2, 3};
V = {4, 5, 6};
P = {P1, P2, P3};
Solve[A + V t == P, P]
outputs:
{{P1 -> 1 + 4 t, P2 -> 2 + 5 t, P3 -> 3 (1 + 2 t)}}
Typing out P = {P1, P2, P3} can be annoying if the array or matrix is large.
Clear[A, V, PP, P];
A = {1, 2, 3};
V = {4, 5, 6};
PP = Array[P, 3];
Solve[A + V t == PP, PP]
outputs:
{{P[1] -> 1 + 4 t, P[2] -> 2 + 5 t, P[3] -> 3 (1 + 2 t)}}
Matrix vector inner product:
Clear[A, xx, bb];
A = {{1, 5}, {6, 7}};
xx = Array[x, 2];
bb = Array[b, 2];
Solve[A.xx == bb, xx]
outputs:
{{x[1] -> 1/23 (-7 b[1] + 5 b[2]), x[2] -> 1/23 (6 b[1] - b[2])}}
Matrix multiplication:
Clear[A, BB, d];
A = {{1, 5}, {6, 7}};
BB = Array[B, {2, 2}];
d = {{6, 7}, {8, 9}};
Solve[A.BB == d]
outputs:
{{B[1, 1] -> -(2/23), B[2, 1] -> 28/23, B[1, 2] -> -(4/23), B[2, 2] -> 33/23}}
The dot product has an infix notation built in just use a period for the dot.
I do not think the cross product does however. This is how you use the Notation package to make one. "X" will become our infix form of Cross. I suggest coping the example from the Notation, Symbolize and InfixNotation tutorial. Also use the Notation Palette which helps abstract away some of the Box syntax.
Clear[X]
Needs["Notation`"]
Notation[x_ X y_\[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]Cross[x_, y_]]
Notation[NotationTemplateTag[
RowBox[{x_, , X, , y_, }]] \[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]
NotationTemplateTag[RowBox[{ ,
RowBox[{Cross, [,
RowBox[{x_, ,, y_}], ]}]}]]]
{a, b, c} X {x, y, z}
outputs:
{-c y + b z, c x - a z, -b x + a y}
The above looks horrible but when using the Notation Palette it looks like:
Clear[X]
Needs["Notation`"]
Notation[x_ X y_\[DoubleLongLeftRightArrow]Cross[x_, y_]]
{a, b, c} X {x, y, z}
I have run into some quirks using the notation package in the past versions of mathematica so be careful.
I don't have a general solution for you by any means (MathForum may be the better way to go), but there are some tips that I can offer you. The first is to do the expansion of your vectors into components in a more systematic way. For instance, I would solve the equation you wrote as follows.
rawSol = With[{coords = {x, y, z}},
Solve[
Flatten[
{A[#] + V[#] t == P[#] t & /# coords,
Total[P[#]^2 & /# coords] == P^2}],
Flatten[{t, P /# coords}]]];
Then you can work with the rawSol variable more easily. Next, because you are referring the vector components in a uniform way (always matching the Mathematica pattern v_[x|y|z]), you can define rules that will aid in simplifying them. I played around a bit before coming up with the following rules:
vectorRules =
{forms___ + vec_[x]^2 + vec_[y]^2 + vec_[z]^2 :> forms + vec^2,
forms___ + c_. v1_[x]*v2_[x] + c_. v1_[y]*v2_[y] + c_. v1_[z]*v2_[z] :>
forms + c v1\[CenterDot]v2};
These rules will simplify the relationships for vector norms and dot products (cross-products are left as a likely painful exercise for the reader). EDIT: rcollyer pointed out that you can make c optional in the rule for dot products, so you only need two rules for norms and dot products.
With these rules, I was immediately able to simplify the solution for t into a form very close to yours:
In[3] := t /. rawSol //. vectorRules // Simplify // InputForm
Out[3] = {(A \[CenterDot] V - Sqrt[A^2*(P^2 - V^2) +
(A \[CenterDot] V)^2])/(P^2 - V^2),
(A \[CenterDot] V + Sqrt[A^2*(P^2 - V^2) +
(A \[CenterDot] V)^2])/(P^2 - V^2)}
Like I said, it's not a complete way of solving these kinds of problems by any means, but if you're careful about casting the problem into terms that are easy to work with from a pattern-matching and rule-replacement standpoint, you can go pretty far.
I've taken a somewhat different approach to this issue. I've made some definitions that return this output:
Patterns that are known to be vector quantities may be specified using vec[_], patterns that have an OverVector[] or OverHat[] wrapper (symbols with a vector or hat over them) are assumed to be vectors by default.
The definitions are experimental and should be treated as such, but they seem to work well. I expect to add to this over time.
Here are the definitions. The need to be pasted into a Mathematica Notebook cell and converted to StandardForm to see them properly.
Unprotect[vExpand,vExpand$,Cross,Plus,Times,CenterDot];
(* vec[pat] determines if pat is a vector quantity.
vec[pat] can be used to define patterns that should be treated as vectors.
Default: Patterns are assumed to be scalar unless otherwise defined *)
vec[_]:=False;
(* Symbols with a vector hat, or vector operations on vectors are assumed to be vectors *)
vec[OverVector[_]]:=True;
vec[OverHat[_]]:=True;
vec[u_?vec+v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?vec-v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?vec\[Cross]v_?vec]:=True;
vec[u_?VectorQ]:=True;
(* Placeholder for matrix types *)
mat[a_]:=False;
(* Anything not defined as a vector or matrix is a scalar *)
scal[x_]:=!(vec[x]\[Or]mat[x]);
scal[x_?scal+y_?scal]:=True;scal[x_?scal y_?scal]:=True;
(* Scalars times vectors are vectors *)
vec[a_?scal u_?vec]:=True;
mat[a_?scal m_?mat]:=True;
vExpand$[u_?vec\[Cross](v_?vec+w_?vec)]:=vExpand$[u\[Cross]v]+vExpand$[u\[Cross]w];
vExpand$[(u_?vec+v_?vec)\[Cross]w_?vec]:=vExpand$[u\[Cross]w]+vExpand$[v\[Cross]w];
vExpand$[u_?vec\[CenterDot](v_?vec+w_?vec)]:=vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]v]+vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]w];
vExpand$[(u_?vec+v_?vec)\[CenterDot]w_?vec]:=vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]w]+vExpand$[v\[CenterDot]w];
vExpand$[s_?scal (u_?vec\[Cross]v_?vec)]:=Expand[s] vExpand$[u\[Cross]v];
vExpand$[s_?scal (u_?vec\[CenterDot]v_?vec)]:=Expand[s] vExpand$[u\[CenterDot]v];
vExpand$[Plus[x__]]:=vExpand$/#Plus[x];
vExpand$[s_?scal,Plus[x__]]:=Expand[s](vExpand$/#Plus[x]);
vExpand$[Times[x__]]:=vExpand$/#Times[x];
vExpand[e_]:=e//.e:>Expand[vExpand$[e]]
(* Some simplification rules *)
(u_?vec\[Cross]u_?vec):=\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\);
(u_?vec+\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\)):=u;
0v_?vec:=\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\);
\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\)\[CenterDot]v_?vec:=0;
v_?vec\[CenterDot]\!\(\*OverscriptBox["0", "\[RightVector]"]\):=0;
(a_?scal u_?vec)\[Cross]v_?vec :=a u\[Cross]v;u_?vec\[Cross](a_?scal v_?vec ):=a u\[Cross]v;
(a_?scal u_?vec)\[CenterDot]v_?vec :=a u\[CenterDot]v;
u_?vec\[CenterDot](a_?scal v_?vec) :=a u\[CenterDot]v;
(* Stealing behavior from Dot *)
Attributes[CenterDot]=Attributes[Dot];
Protect[vExpand,vExpand$,Cross,Plus,Times,CenterDot];