Does anyone know how to prescribe boundary conditions of like u[t,0,y]==u[t,1,1-y] in Mathematica using NDSolve... It always complains that the arguments of the dependent variable should literally match the independent variable.
Thanks in advance.
This symmetry condition can probably be recast in the form Derivative[0,1][u][x,1/2]==0. Of course, more information on the problem would be helpful.
Edit in response to rcollyer:
The algebraic identity f(x)=f(1-x) for all x in (0,1) implies a geometric symmetry: the graph of f will be symmetric about the line x=1/2. Now draw the graph of such a function; if it is differentiable, you will find that f'(1/2)=0.
Now, I don't know for sure that the OP's problem can be recast this way; it rather depends on the specifics of the problem. This situation frequently arises when dealing with PDEs on the disk where the function u is a function of polar coordinates r and theta. If the disk represents a clamped drum, then perhaps you've got u(1,t)=0. But, what of u(0,t)? If the function is symmetric and smooth, then u_x(0,t)=0 is a reasonable condition.
Related
The following is the plot of a curve f(r), where r is the radial coordinate, and plotted for different values of a parameter as shown:
However, I don't know the functional form of the curve and I am interested to find the same. Are there any numerical methods which can be used to find the functional form of f(r) in terms of the radial coordinate and the parameter?
I had found a solution of the problem based on the suggestion by ja72 to use the Eureqa software which churns through the data to create accurate predictive models using evolutionary search algorithm.
In the question, the different curves corresponds to different values of . So, initially I obtained the best fit equation for different values of and found that the following model equation is suitable for my purpose:
Then, I repeated the process for a large number of values of and calculated the values of the four functions for different values of and then individually fitted these four functions. The following are the results that I obtained:
N.B.: Eureqa gave several other better fitting formulas than those mentioned in the answer. But the formulas that I mentioned are sufficiently accurate for my purpose and have minimum complexity.
A blind curve fit without an underlying model is a dangerous thing.
You need to have an understanding of the physical model behind the data to create a successful fit. The reason is that if r is distance and the best fit curve uses r^0.4072 for example, that dimension raised to a decimal power bears no meaning and it hides any underlying assumptions.Like some other dimension l not included in the model, whereas only the dimensionless quantity (r/l) would make sense to raise to the decimal power.
From a function analysis standpoint
These curves are not the result of any standard math function. Well I am not that familiar with bessel functions, gamma functions and legendre polynomials. But none of the standard functions you find in a scientific calculator jumps out here.
If r is assumed to be dimensionless, then you try to match the asymptotic behavior when r -> 0 and when r -> ∞. The would be the baseline curve. To me it does not look hyperbolic, but rather close to 1/LN(1+r).
So change the variables make g=1/LN(1+r) and plot f(r) against g(r) and see what that looks like. Then try another round of curve fitting in the new curves ... and so on.
Nobody can answer this question
Nobody else could effectively answer this question but you, because a) you have the data, and b) you need to make assumptions about what region is important or not, and what is acceptable deviation.
While I was reading the blog of Colah,
In the diagram we can clearly see that zt is going to
~ht and not rt
But the equations say otherwise. Isn’t this supposed to be zt*ht-1 And not rt*ht-1.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
I see this is somehow old, however, if you still haven't figured it out and care, or for any other person who would end up here, the answer is that the figure and equations are consistent. Note that, the operator (x) in the diagram (the pink circle with an X in it) is the Hadamard product, which is an element-wise multiplication between two tensors of the same size. In the equations, this operator is illustrated by * (usually it is represented by a circle and a dot at its center). ~h_t is the output of the tanh operator. The tanh operator receives a linear combination of the input at time t, x_t, and the result of the Hadamard product between r_t and h_{t-1}. Note that r_t should have already been updated by passing the linear combination of x_t and h_{t-1} through a sigmoid. I hope the reset is clear.
I have a function which takes as inputs n-dimensional (say n=10) vectors whose components are real numbers varying from 0 to a large positive number A say 50,000, ends included. For any such vector the function outputs an integer from 1 to say B=100. I have this function and want to find its global minima.
Broadly speaking there are algorithmic, iterative and heuristics based approaches to tackle such optimization problem. Which are the best techniques suggested to solve this problem? I am looking for suggestions to algorithms or active research papers that i can implement from scratch to solve such problems. I have already given up hope on existing optimization functions that ship with Matlab/python. I am hoping to read experience of others working with approximation/heuristic algorithms to optimize such ill-defined functions.
I ran fmincon, fminsearch, fminunc in Matlab but they fail to optimize the function. The function is ill-defined according to their definitions. Matlab says this for fmincon:
Initial point is a local minimum that satisfies the constraints.
Optimization completed because at the initial point, the objective function is non-decreasing
in feasible directions to within the selected value of the optimality tolerance, and
constraints are satisfied to within the selected value of the constraint tolerance.
Problem arises because this function has piecewise-constant behavior. If a vector V is assigned to a number say 65, changing its components very slightly may not have any change. Such ill-defined behavior is to be well-expected because of pigeon-hole principle. The domain of function is unlimited whereas range is just a bunch of numbers.
I also wish to clarify one issue that may arise. Suppose i do gradient descent on a starting point x0 and my next x that i get from GD-iteration has some components lie outside the domain [0,50000], then what happens? So actually the domain is circular. So a vector of size 3 like [30;5432;50432] becomes [30;5432;432]. This is automatically taken care of so that there is no worry about iterations finding a vector outside the domain.
The question basically says it all. I would like to add that lets suppose I have an image, a photograph and I wish to calculate its mathematical function, so that when I input x and y pixel value, it returns a vector consisting of R,G,B values at that x,y point. Therefore I can use a for loop to construct the whole image by just that function. I am not asking about the whole solution or algorithm here, but just that if this thing is possible, which direction should I take to go about doing this. Reference to relevant papers would be really nice.
Thanks
Azmuh
Yes, it is absolutely always possible. Basically, if you choose some points, there is always (an infinity of) smooth explicit functions (that is nice functions) which value on the points is exactly the one you choose.
For example, you can have a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lagrange_polynomial or http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trigonometric_interpolation. They are two different methods to compute an explicit function which pass exactly by the data points you have. So you can apply those methods for your image, seen as a set of data points, and separately for R, G, and B.
At the end, you get one simple function explicitly (a polynomial or a trigonometric series, depending on what you chose), and you can compute its values where you want.
However, note that I would definitely not recommend to use those methods to effectively retrieve the data. Indeed, the functions you get are absolutely not optimized (that is with a veeeery high degree (for a n×m image, each color will have a degree nm-1), very high coefficients) and furthermore will have extremely large values between your original points (look for Runge's phenomenon).
This is not possible in general... Imagine an image that has been generated by random values for each pixel. You can't find a mathematical expression that will give you the value of a pixel given its 2d coordinates.
Now it may be possible for some images that have been generated using a function. In that case, it's not a problem specific to image processing, it's get back the function from some points of the function (in your case, you have all the points). It's exactly the same thing as extrapolating a curve from a set of points when you trace a graph in excel. The more points you have, the more precise the function you wind will be.
Look for information about Regression analysis. I can't help you much but there are some algorithms that exist.
Does anyone have experience with algorithms for evaluating hypergeometric functions? I would be interested in general references, but I'll describe my particular problem in case someone has dealt with it.
My specific problem is evaluating a function of the form 3F2(a, b, 1; c, d; 1) where a, b, c, and d are all positive reals and c+d > a+b+1. There are many special cases that have a closed-form formula, but as far as I know there are no such formulas in general. The power series centered at zero converges at 1, but very slowly; the ratio of consecutive coefficients goes to 1 in the limit. Maybe something like Aitken acceleration would help?
I tested Aitken acceleration and it does not seem to help for this problem (nor does Richardson extrapolation). This probably means Pade approximation doesn't work either. I might have done something wrong though, so by all means try it for yourself.
I can think of two approaches.
One is to evaluate the series at some point such as z = 0.5 where convergence is rapid to get an initial value and then step forward to z = 1 by plugging the hypergeometric differential equation into an ODE solver. I don't know how well this works in practice; it might not, due to z = 1 being a singularity (if I recall correctly).
The second is to use the definition of 3F2 in terms of the Meijer G-function. The contour integral defining the Meijer G-function can be evaluated numerically by applying Gaussian or doubly-exponential quadrature to segments of the contour. This is not terribly efficient, but it should work, and it should scale to relatively high precision.
Is it correct that you want to sum a series where you know the ratio of successive terms and it is a rational function?
I think Gosper's algorithm and the rest of the tools for proving hypergeometric identities (and finding them) do exactly this, right? (See Wilf and Zielberger's A=B book online.)