Example piecewise wise function:
f[x_]:=Piecewise[{{x^2, 0<x<1-epsilon},{x,1<x<2-epsilon},{2,x>2}}]
Is there a way to connect these parts in interval epsilon, so I get a smooth function?
EDIT: By smooth, I don't mean it needs to be derivable in point of connection, just that in some numerical work it looks like a "natural" connection.
EDIT2:
Two black circles represent the points where lies the problem. I'd like it to look like a derivable function (although it doesn't need to be in rigor mathematical sense, but I don't want these two spikes). Red circle represents the part where it looks good.
What I could do is do this by nonlinear fitting the [x-epsilon, x+epsilon], but I was hoping that there was an easier way with piecewise function.
At first, given a function we should define it precisely on the whole range {x,0,2}, ie. its values on ranges 1-epsilon <= x < 1 and 2 - epsilon <= x < 2.
The easiest way is to define f1[x] piecewise linear on the both ranges, however the resulting function wouldn't be differentiable on the gluing points, and it would involve spikes.
To prevent such a situation we should choose (in this case) at least third order polynomials there:
P[x_] := a x^3 + b x^2 + c x + d
and glue them together with f[x] assuming "gluing conditions" (equality of functions at given points as well as of their first derivatives) ie. solve resulting equations :
W[x_, eps_]:= P[x]//. Flatten#Solve[{#^2 == P[#],
1 == P[1],
2# == 3a#^2 +2b# +c,
1 == 3a +2b +c}, {a, b, c, d}]&#(1-eps)
Z[x_, eps_]:= P[x]//. Flatten#Solve[{# == P[#],
2 == P[2],
1 == 3a#^2 +2b# +c,
0 == 12a +4b +c}, {a, b, c, d}]&#(2-eps)
To visualise the resuls we can take advantege of Manipulate :
f1[x_, eps_]:= Piecewise[{{x^2, 0 < x < 1 -eps}, {W[x, eps], 1 -eps <= x < 1},
{ x , 1 <= x < 2 -eps}, {Z[x, eps], 2 -eps <= x < 2},
{ 2 , x >=2}}];
Manipulate[ Plot[f1[x, eps], {x, 0, 2.3},
PlotRange -> {0, 2.3}, ImageSize->{650,650}]
//Quiet, {eps, 0, 1}]
Depending on epsilon > 0 we get differentiable functions f1, while for epsilon = 0 f1 is not differentiable at two points.
Plot[f1[x, eps]/. eps -> .4, {x, 0, 2.3}, PlotRange -> {0, 2.3},
ImageSize -> {500, 500}, PlotStyle -> {Blue, Thick}]
If we wanted f1 to be a smooth function (infinitely differentiable) we should play around defining f1 in range [1 - epsilon <= x < 1) with a transcendental function, something like for example Exp[1/(x-1)] etc.
You could do a gradually change between the functions that define the begin and end point of the interval. Below I do this by shifting the weight in the weighted sum of these functions depending on the position in the interval:
ClearAll[f]
epsilon = 0.1;
f[x_] :=
Piecewise[
{
{x^2, 0 < x < 1 - epsilon},
{Rescale[x, {1 - epsilon, 1}, {1, 0}] x^2 + Rescale[x, {1 - epsilon, 1}, {0, 1}] x,
1 - epsilon <= x <= 1},
{x, 1 < x < 2 - epsilon},
{Rescale[x, {2 - epsilon, 2}, {1, 0}] x + Rescale[x, {2 - epsilon, 2}, {0, 1}] 2,
2 - epsilon <= x <= 2},
{2, x > 2}
}
]
Plot[f[x], {x, 0, 2.5}]
I am not sure I understand your question, but from what I gather here is an idea
ClearAll[f]
e = 0.1
f[x_] := Piecewise[{{x^2, 0 < x < 1 - e}, {whatEver,
1 - e <= x <= 1 + e}, {x, 1 + e < x < 2}, {2, x > 2}}, error]
f[1] the gives whatEver.
Related
I know how to find the derivatives however i don’t know how to use mathematica to find the absolute value. And compare with the graph and 2nd Derivatives?
f(x) = 3x^(2/3) -2x +1 on [-1,8]
Is this what you're after?
f[x_] := 3 x^(2/3) - 2 x + 1
max = First#FindMaximum[{f[x], -1 <= x <= 8}, x];
min = First#FindMinimum[{f[x], -1 <= x <= 8}, x];
Plot[{f[x], f''[x], max, min}, {x, -1, 8},
PlotLegends -> "Expressions"]
I am trying to learn a little bit about Wolfram Mathematica.
I want to define a symbolic function
where x is a vector, g is a function that takes a vector and returns a vector and h is a function that takes a vector and returns a scalar.
I don't want to commit to specific g and h, I just want to have a symbolic representation for them.
I would like to get a symbolic form for the third order derivatives (which would be a tensor) -- is there a way to do that in Wolfram Mathematica?
EDIT: I should mention, A and C are matrices, and b and d are vectors.
Here is what I tried and didn't work:
Try this
f[x_] := x*E^x
and then this
f'[x]
returns this
E^x + E^x x
and this
f''[x]
returns this
2 E^x + E^x x
Three methods of notation, all producing the same result.
f[x_] := Sin[x] + x^2
D[f[x], x]
2 x + Cos[x]
f'[x]
2 x + Cos[x]
f''[x]
2 - Sin[x]
using an alternative form of definition of f
Clear[f]
f = Sin[x] + x^2
D[f, x]
2 x + Cos[x]
δx f
2 x + Cos[x]
δ{x,2} f
2 - Sin[x]
Note
δ{x,2} f is supposed to be the subscript form of D[f, {x, 2}] but web formatting is limited.
Scoping out matrix and vector dimensions, and using S instead of C since the latter is a protected (uppercase) symbol.
A = {{1, 2, 3}, {4, 5, 6}};
x = {2, 4, 8};
A.x
{34, 76}
b = {3, 5};
h = 3;
h (A.x + b)
{111, 243}
S = {{1, 2}, {3, 4}, {5, 6}};
S.(h (A.x + b))
{597, 1305, 2013}
d = {2, 4, 8};
g = 2;
g (S.(h (A.x + b)) + d)
{1198, 2618, 4042}
So compatible matrix and vector assumptions can be made. (It turns out the derivative result comes out the same without taking the trouble to make the assumptions.)
Clear[A, x, b, S, d]
$Assumptions = {
Element[A, Matrices[{m, n}]],
Element[x, Vectors[n]],
Element[b, Vectors[m]],
Element[S, Matrices[{n, m}]],
Element[d, Vectors[n]]};
f = g (S.(h (A.x + b)) + d);
D[f, x]
g S.(h A.1)
D[f, {x, 3}]
0
I'm not sure if these results are correct so if you find out do comment.
I need to create a 3 by 3 real orthonormal symbolic matrix in Mathematica.
How can I do so?
Not that I recommend this, but...
m = Array[a, {3, 3}];
{q, r} = QRDecomposition[m];
q2 = Simplify[q /. Conjugate -> Identity]
So q2 is a symbolic orthogonal matrix (assuming we work over reals).
You seem to want some SO(3) group parametrization in Mathematica I think. You will only have 3 independent symbols (variables), since you have 6 constraints from mutual orthogonality of vectors and the norms equal to 1. One way is to construct independent rotations around the 3 axes, and multiply those matrices. Here is the (perhaps too complex) code to do that:
makeOrthogonalMatrix[p_Symbol, q_Symbol, t_Symbol] :=
Module[{permute, matrixGeneratingFunctions},
permute = Function[perm, Permute[Transpose[Permute[#, perm]], perm] &];
matrixGeneratingFunctions =
Function /# FoldList[
permute[#2][#1] &,
{{Cos[#], 0, Sin[#]}, {0, 1, 0}, {-Sin[#], 0, Cos[#]}},
{{2, 1, 3}, {3, 2, 1}}];
#1.#2.#3 & ## MapThread[Compose, {matrixGeneratingFunctions, {p, q, t}}]];
Here is how this works:
In[62]:= makeOrthogonalMatrix[x,y,z]
Out[62]=
{{Cos[x] Cos[z]+Sin[x] Sin[y] Sin[z],Cos[z] Sin[x] Sin[y]-Cos[x] Sin[z],Cos[y] Sin[x]},
{Cos[y] Sin[z],Cos[y] Cos[z],-Sin[y]},
{-Cos[z] Sin[x]+Cos[x] Sin[y] Sin[z],Cos[x] Cos[z] Sin[y]+Sin[x] Sin[z],Cos[x] Cos[y]}}
You can check that the matrix is orthonormal, by using Simplify over the various column (or row) dot products.
I have found a "direct" way to impose special orthogonality.
See below.
(*DEFINITION OF ORTHOGONALITY AND SELF ADJUNCTNESS CONDITIONS:*)
MinorMatrix[m_List?MatrixQ] := Map[Reverse, Minors[m], {0, 1}]
CofactorMatrix[m_List?MatrixQ] := MapIndexed[#1 (-1)^(Plus ## #2) &, MinorMatrix[m], {2}]
UpperTriangle[ m_List?MatrixQ] := {m[[1, 1 ;; 3]], {0, m[[2, 2]], m[[2, 3]]}, {0, 0, m[[3, 3]]}};
FlatUpperTriangle[m_List?MatrixQ] := Flatten[{m[[1, 1 ;; 3]], m[[2, 2 ;; 3]], m[[3, 3]]}];
Orthogonalityconditions[m_List?MatrixQ] := Thread[FlatUpperTriangle[m.Transpose[m]] == FlatUpperTriangle[IdentityMatrix[3]]];
Selfadjunctconditions[m_List?MatrixQ] := Thread[FlatUpperTriangle[CofactorMatrix[m]] == FlatUpperTriangle[Transpose[m]]];
SO3conditions[m_List?MatrixQ] := Flatten[{Selfadjunctconditions[m], Orthogonalityconditions[m]}];
(*Building of an SO(3) matrix*)
mat = Table[Subscript[m, i, j], {i, 3}, {j, 3}];
$Assumptions = SO3conditions[mat]
Then
Simplify[Det[mat]]
gives 1;...and
MatrixForm[Simplify[mat.Transpose[mat]]
gives the identity matrix;
...finally
MatrixForm[Simplify[CofactorMatrix[mat] - Transpose[mat]]]
gives a Zero matrix.
========================================================================
This is what I was looking for when I asked my question!
However, let me know your thought on this method.
Marcellus
Marcellus, you have to use some parametrization of SO(3), since your general matrix has to reflect the RP3 topology of the group. No single parametrization will cover the whole group without either multivaluedness or singular points. Wikipedia has a nice page about the various charts on SO(3).
Maybe one of the conceptually simplest is the exponential map from the Lie algebra so(3).
Define an antisymmetric, real A (which spans so(3))
A = {{0, a, -c},
{-a, 0, b},
{c, -b, 0}};
Then MatrixExp[A] is an element of SO(3).
We can check that this is so, using
Transpose[MatrixExp[A]].MatrixExp[A] == IdentityMatrix[3] // Simplify
If we write t^2 = a^2 + b^2 + c^2, we can simplify the matrix exponential down to
{{ b^2 + (a^2 + c^2) Cos[t] , b c (1 - Cos[t]) + a t Sin[t], a b (1 - Cos[t]) - c t Sin[t]},
{b c (1 - Cos[t]) - a t Sin[t], c^2 + (a^2 + b^2) Cos[t] , a c (1 - Cos[t]) + b t Sin[t]},
{a b (1 - Cos[t]) + c t Sin[t], a c (1 - Cos[t]) - b t Sin[t], a^2 + (b^2 + c^2) Cos[t]}} / t^2
Note that this is basically the same parametrization as RotationMatrix gives.
Compare with the output from
RotationMatrix[s, {b, c, a}] // ComplexExpand // Simplify[#, Trig -> False] &;
% /. a^2 + b^2 + c^2 -> 1
Although I really like the idea of Marcellus' answer to his own question, it's not completely correct. Unfortunately, the conditions he arrives at also result in
Simplify[Transpose[mat] - mat]
evaluating to a zero matrix! This is clearly not right. Here's an approach that's both correct and more direct:
OrthogonalityConditions[m_List?MatrixQ] := Thread[Flatten[m.Transpose[m]] == Flatten[IdentityMatrix[3]]];
SO3Conditions[m_List?MatrixQ] := Flatten[{OrthogonalityConditions[m], Det[m] == 1}];
i.e. multiplying a rotation matrix by its transpose results in the identity matrix, and the determinant of a rotation matrix is 1.
I am wondering if anyone can help me to plot the Cantor dust on the plane in Mathematica. This is linked to the Cantor set.
Thanks a lot.
EDIT
I actually wanted to have something like this:
Here's a naive and probably not very optimized way of reproducing the graphics for the ternary Cantor set construction:
cantorRule = Line[{{a_, n_}, {b_, n_}}] :>
With[{d = b - a, np = n - .1},
{Line[{{a, np}, {a + d/3, np}}], Line[{{b - d/3, np}, {b, np}}]}]
Graphics[{CapForm["Butt"], Thickness[.05],
Flatten#NestList[#/.cantorRule&, Line[{{0., 0}, {1., 0}}], 6]}]
To make Cantor dust using the same replacement rules, we take the result at a particular level, e.g. 4:
dust4=Flatten#Nest[#/.cantorRule&,Line[{{0.,0},{1.,0}}],4]/.Line[{{a_,_},{b_,_}}]:>{a,b}
and take tuples of it
dust4 = Transpose /# Tuples[dust4, 2];
Then we just plot the rectangles
Graphics[Rectangle ### dust4]
Edit: Cantor dust + squares
Changed specs -> New, but similar, solution (still not optimized).
Set n to be a positive integer and choice any subset of 1,...,n then
n = 3; choice = {1, 3};
CanDChoice = c:CanD[__]/;Length[c]===n :> CanD[c[[choice]]];
splitRange = {a_, b_} :> With[{d = (b - a + 0.)/n},
CanD##NestList[# + d &, {a, a + d}, n - 1]];
cantLevToRect[lev_]:=Rectangle###(Transpose/#Tuples[{lev}/.CanD->Sequence,2])
dust = NestList[# /. CanDChoice /. splitRange &, {0, 1}, 4] // Rest;
Graphics[{FaceForm[LightGray], EdgeForm[Black],
Table[cantLevToRect[lev], {lev, Most#dust}],
FaceForm[Black], cantLevToRect[Last#dust /. CanDChoice]}]
Here's the graphics for
n = 7; choice = {1, 2, 4, 6, 7};
dust = NestList[# /. CanDChoice /. splitRange &, {0, 1}, 2] // Rest;
and everything else the same:
Once can use the following approach. Define cantor function:
cantorF[r:(0|1)] = r;
cantorF[r_Rational /; 0 < r < 1] :=
Module[{digs, scale}, {digs, scale} = RealDigits[r, 3];
If[! FreeQ[digs, 1],
digs = Append[TakeWhile[Most[digs]~Join~Last[digs], # != 1 &], 1];];
FromDigits[{digs, scale}, 2]]
Then form the dust by computing differences of F[n/3^k]-F[(n+1/2)/3^k]:
With[{k = 4},
Outer[Times, #, #] &[
Table[(cantorF[(n + 1/2)/3^k] - cantorF[(n)/3^k]), {n, 0,
3^k - 1}]]] // ArrayPlot
I like recursive functions, so
cantor[size_, n_][pt_] :=
With[{s = size/3, ct = cantor[size/3, n - 1]},
{ct[pt], ct[pt + {2 s, 0}], ct[pt + {0, 2 s}], ct[pt + {2 s, 2 s}]}
]
cantor[size_, 0][pt_] := Rectangle[pt, pt + {size, size}]
drawCantor[n_] := Graphics[cantor[1, n][{0, 0}]]
drawCantor[5]
Explanation: size is the edge length of the square the set fits into. pt is the {x,y} coordinates of it lower left corner.
While looking at the belisarius's question about generation of non-singular integer matrices with uniform distribution of its elements, I was studying a paper by Dana Randal, "Efficient generation of random non-singular matrices". The algorithm proposed is recursive, and involves generating a matrix of lower dimension and assigning it to a given minor. I used combinations of Insert and Transpose to do it, but there are must be more efficient ways of doing it. How would you do it?
The following is the code:
Clear[Gen];
Gen[p_, 1] := {{{1}}, RandomInteger[{1, p - 1}, {1, 1}]};
Gen[p_, n_] := Module[{v, r, aa, tt, afr, am, tm},
While[True,
v = RandomInteger[{0, p - 1}, n];
r = LengthWhile[v, # == 0 &] + 1;
If[r <= n, Break[]]
];
afr = UnitVector[n, r];
{am, tm} = Gen[p, n - 1];
{Insert[
Transpose[
Insert[Transpose[am], RandomInteger[{0, p - 1}, n - 1], r]], afr,
1], Insert[
Transpose[Insert[Transpose[tm], ConstantArray[0, n - 1], r]], v,
r]}
]
NonSingularRandomMatrix[p_?PrimeQ, n_] := Mod[Dot ## Gen[p, n], p]
It does generate a non-singular matrix, and has uniform distribution of matrix elements, but requires p to be prime:
The code is also not every efficient, which is, I suspect due to my inefficient matrix constructors:
In[10]:= Timing[NonSingularRandomMatrix[101, 300];]
Out[10]= {0.421, Null}
EDIT So let me condense my question. The minor matrix of a given matrix m can be computed as follows:
MinorMatrix[m_?MatrixQ, {i_, j_}] :=
Drop[Transpose[Drop[Transpose[m], {j}]], {i}]
It is the original matrix with i-th row and j-th column deleted.
I now need to create a matrix of size n by n that will have the given minor matrix mm at position {i,j}. What I used in the algorithm was:
ExpandMinor[minmat_, {i_, j_}, v1_,
v2_] /; {Length[v1] - 1, Length[v2]} == Dimensions[minmat] :=
Insert[Transpose[Insert[Transpose[minmat], v2, j]], v1, i]
Example:
In[31]:= ExpandMinor[
IdentityMatrix[4], {2, 3}, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, {2, 3, 4, 4}]
Out[31]= {{1, 0, 2, 0, 0}, {1, 2, 3, 4, 5}, {0, 1, 3, 0, 0}, {0, 0, 4,
1, 0}, {0, 0, 4, 0, 1}}
I am hoping this can be done more efficiently, which is what I am soliciting in the question.
Per blisarius's suggestion I looked into implementing ExpandMinor via ArrayFlatten.
Clear[ExpandMinorAlt];
ExpandMinorAlt[m_, {i_ /; i > 1, j_}, v1_,
v2_] /; {Length[v1] - 1, Length[v2]} == Dimensions[m] :=
ArrayFlatten[{
{Part[m, ;; i - 1, ;; j - 1], Transpose#{v2[[;; i - 1]]},
Part[m, ;; i - 1, j ;;]},
{{v1[[;; j - 1]]}, {{v1[[j]]}}, {v1[[j + 1 ;;]]}},
{Part[m, i ;;, ;; j - 1], Transpose#{v2[[i ;;]]}, Part[m, i ;;, j ;;]}
}]
ExpandMinorAlt[m_, {1, j_}, v1_,
v2_] /; {Length[v1] - 1, Length[v2]} == Dimensions[m] :=
ArrayFlatten[{
{{v1[[;; j - 1]]}, {{v1[[j]]}}, {v1[[j + 1 ;;]]}},
{Part[m, All, ;; j - 1], Transpose#{v2}, Part[m, All, j ;;]}
}]
In[192]:= dim = 5;
mm = RandomInteger[{-5, 5}, {dim, dim}];
v1 = RandomInteger[{-5, 5}, dim + 1];
v2 = RandomInteger[{-5, 5}, dim];
In[196]:=
Table[ExpandMinor[mm, {i, j}, v1, v2] ==
ExpandMinorAlt[mm, {i, j}, v1, v2], {i, dim}, {j, dim}] //
Flatten // DeleteDuplicates
Out[196]= {True}
It took me a while to get here, but since I spent a good part of my postdoc generating random matrices, I could not help it, so here goes. The main inefficiency in the code comes from the necessity to move matrices around (copy them). If we could reformulate the algorithm so that we only modify a single matrix in place, we could win big. For this, we must compute the positions where the inserted vectors/rows will end up, given that we will typically insert in the middle of smaller matrices and thus shift the elements. This is possible. Here is the code:
gen = Compile[{{p, _Integer}, {n, _Integer}},
Module[{vmat = Table[0, {n}, {n}],
rs = Table[0, {n}],(* A vector of r-s*)
amatr = Table[0, {n}, {n}],
tmatr = Table[0, {n}, {n}],
i = 1,
v = Table[0, {n}],
r = n + 1,
rsc = Table[0, {n}], (* recomputed r-s *)
matstarts = Table[0, {n}], (* Horizontal positions of submatrix starts at a given step *)
remainingShifts = Table[0, {n}]
(*
** shifts that will be performed after a given row/vector insertion,
** and can affect the real positions where the elements will end up
*)
},
(*
** Compute the r-s and vectors v all at once. Pad smaller
** vectors v with zeros to fill a rectangular matrix
*)
For[i = 1, i <= n, i++,
While[True,
v = RandomInteger[{0, p - 1}, i];
For[r = 1, r <= i && v[[r]] == 0, r++];
If[r <= i,
vmat[[i]] = PadRight[v, n];
rs[[i]] = r;
Break[]]
]];
(*
** We must recompute the actual r-s, since the elements will
** move due to subsequent column insertions.
** The code below repeatedly adds shifts to the
** r-s on the left, resulting from insertions on the right.
** For example, if vector of r-s
** is {1,2,1,3}, it will become {1,2,1,3}->{2,3,1,3}->{2,4,1,3},
** and the end result shows where
** in the actual matrix the columns (and also rows for the case of
** tmatr) will be inserted
*)
rsc = rs;
For[i = 2, i <= n, i++,
remainingShifts = Take[rsc, i - 1];
For[r = 1, r <= i - 1, r++,
If[remainingShifts[[r]] == rsc[[i]],
Break[]
]
];
If[ r <= n,
rsc[[;; i - 1]] += UnitStep[rsc[[;; i - 1]] - rsc[[i]]]
]
];
(*
** Compute the starting left positions of sub-
** matrices at each step (1x1,2x2,etc)
*)
matstarts = FoldList[Min, First#rsc, Rest#rsc];
(* Initialize matrices - this replaces the recursion base *)
amatr[[n, rsc[[1]]]] = 1;
tmatr[[rsc[[1]], rsc[[1]]]] = RandomInteger[{1, p - 1}];
(* Repeatedly perform insertions - this replaces recursion *)
For[i = 2, i <= n, i++,
amatr[[n - i + 2 ;; n, rsc[[i]]]] = RandomInteger[{0, p - 1}, i - 1];
amatr[[n - i + 1, rsc[[i]]]] = 1;
tmatr[[n - i + 2 ;; n, rsc[[i]]]] = Table[0, {i - 1}];
tmatr[[rsc[[i]],
Fold[# + 1 - Unitize[# - #2] &,
matstarts[[i]] + Range[0, i - 1], Sort[Drop[rsc, i]]]]] =
vmat[[i, 1 ;; i]];
];
{amatr, tmatr}
],
{{FoldList[__], _Integer, 1}}, CompilationTarget -> "C"];
NonSignularRanomMatrix[p_?PrimeQ, n_] := Mod[Dot ## Gen[p, n],p];
NonSignularRanomMatrixAlt[p_?PrimeQ, n_] := Mod[Dot ## gen[p, n],p];
Here is the timing for the large matrix:
In[1114]:= gen [101, 300]; // Timing
Out[1114]= {0.078, Null}
For the histogram, I get the identical plots, and the 10-fold efficiency boost:
In[1118]:=
Histogram[Table[NonSignularRanomMatrix[11, 5][[2, 3]], {10^4}]]; // Timing
Out[1118]= {7.75, Null}
In[1119]:=
Histogram[Table[NonSignularRanomMatrixAlt[11, 5][[2, 3]], {10^4}]]; // Timing
Out[1119]= {0.687, Null}
I expect that upon careful profiling of the above compiled code, one could further improve the performance. Also, I did not use runtime Listable attribute in Compile, while this should be possible. It may also be that the parts of the code which perform assignment to minors are generic enough so that the logic can be factored out of the main function - I did not investigate that yet.
For the first part of your question (which I hope I understand properly) can
MinorMatrix be written as follows?
MinorMatrixAlt[m_?MatrixQ, {i_, j_}] := Drop[mat, {i}, {j}]