In a two dimentional integer space, you have two points, A and B. This function returns an enumeration of the points in the quadrilateral subset bounded by A and B.
A = {1,1} B = {2,3}
Fn(A,B) = {{1,1},{1,2},{1,3},{2,1},{2,2},{2,3}}
I can implement it in a few lines of LINQ.
private void UnknownFunction(Point to, Point from, List<Point> list)
{
var vectorX = Enumerable.Range(Math.Min(to.X, from.X), Math.Abs(to.X - from.Y) + 1);
var vectorY = Enumerable.Range(Math.Min(to.Y, from.Y), Math.Abs(to.Y - from.Y) + 1);
foreach (var x in vectorX)
foreach (var y in vectorY)
list.Add(new Point(x, y));
}
I'm fairly sure that this is a standard mathematical operation, but I can't think what it is.
Feel free to tell me that it's one line of code in your language of choice. Or to give me a cunning implementation with lambdas or some such.
But mostly I just want to know what it's called. It's driving me nuts.
It feels a little like a convolution, but it's been too long since I was at school for me to be sure.
It's the Cartesian product of the sets {1,2} and {1,2,3} in your specific example, or generally the Cartesian product of the vectorX and vectorY in your code example.
I don't know that this is a standard mathematical operation, if you wanted to describe it mathematically it would be described as such.
Given two points, (x_1,x_2) and (y_1,y_2) in N^2. Then take min_1 to be min(x_1,y_1) and max_1 to be max(x_1,y_1) and symetric operations for min_2 and max_2. Then the set is defined as:
Enum = { (a,b) : a,b in N^2 and min_1 <= a <= max_1 and min_2 <= b <= max_2 }
Which seems pretty arbitrary to me and I would say that it doesn't seem like a fairly standard mathematical operation to me.
Solving it using the Cartesian product becomes, trickier. It was simple to use the cartesian product when you have points that are so close together, but what about when you have {1,1} and {8,8}. Then the problem is a little more involved. You take the two sets:
{ a: min(x_1,y_1) <= a <= max(x_1,y_1) } and {b : min(x_2,y_2) <= b <= max(x_2,y_2) }
In both instances you're simply taking all the values in the range and enumerating across the space. Once again though, it feels like an arbitrary operation and maybe I'm wrong, but I don't think this has a well-known name. Besides enumerating the points in a rectangle.
Integer / lattice points in bounds / rectangle.
(Similar to the name of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_points_in_convex_polyhedra)
Cartesian Product using list comprehensions in
Python
[(x,y) for x in [1,2] for y in [1,2,3] ]
and Haskell
[(x,y) | x <- [1,2] , y <- [1,2,3] ]
Related
I have a curvefit problem
I have two functions
y = ax+b
y = ax^2+bx-2.3
I have one set of data each for the above functions
I need to find a and b using least square method combining both the functions
I was using fminsearch function to minimize the sum of squares of errors of these two functions.
I am unable to use this method in lsqcurvefit
Kindly help me
Regards
Ram
I think you'll need to worry less about which library routine to use and more about the math. Assuming you mean vertical offset least squares, then you'll want
D = sum_{i=1..m}(y_Li - a x_Li + b)^2 + sum_{i=j..n}(y_Pj - a x_Pj^2 - b x_Pj + 2.3)^2
where there are m points (x_Li, y_Li) on the line and n points (x_Pj, y_Pj) on the parabola. Now find partial derivatives of D with respect to a and b. Setting them to zero provides two linear equations in 2 unknowns, a and b. Solve this linear system.
y = ax+b
y = ax^2+bx-2.3
In order to not confuse y of the first equation with y of the second equation we use distinct notations :
u = ax+b
v = ax^2+bx+c
The method of linear regression combined for the two functions is shown on the joint page :
HINT : If you want to find by yourself the matrixial equation appearing above, follow the Gene's answer.
I have the following problem: given a 3D irregular geometry A with
(i,j,k)-coordinates, which are the centroids of connected voxels, create a table with the (i_out,j_out,k_out)-coordinates of the cells that represent the complementary set B of the bounding box of A, which we may call C. That is to say, I need the voxel coordinates of the set B = C - A.
To get this done, I am using the Matlab code below, but it is taking too much time to complete when C is fairly large. Then, I would like to speed up the code. To make it clear: cvc is the matrix of voxel coordinates of A; allcvc should produce C and B results from outcvc after setdiff.
Someone has a clue regarding the code performance, or even to improve my strategy?
Problem: the for-loop seems to be the villain.
My attempts: I have tried to follow some hints of Yair Altman's book by doing some tic,toc analyses, using pre-allocation and int8 since I do not need double values. deal yet gave me a slight improvement with min,max. I have also checked this discussion here, but, parallelism, for instance, is a limitation that I have for now.
% A bounding box limits
m = min(cvc,[],1);
M = max(cvc,[],1);
[im,jm,km,iM,jM,kM] = deal(m(1),m(2),m(3),M(1),M(2),M(3));
% (i,j,k) indices of regular grid
I = im:iM;
J = jm:jM;
K = km:kM;
% (i,j,k) table
m = length(I);
n = length(J);
p = length(K);
num = m*n*p;
allcvc = zeros(num,3,'int8');
for N = 1:num
for i = 1:m
for j = 1:n
for k = 1:p
aux = [I(i),J(j),K(k)];
allcvc(N,:) = aux;
end
end
end
end
% operation of exclusion: out = all - in
[outcvc,~] = setdiff(allcvc,cvc,'rows');
To avoid all for-loops in the present code you can use ndgrid or meshgrid functions. For example
[I,J,K] = ndgrid(im:iM, jm:jM, km:kM);
allcvc = [I(:),J(:),K(:)];
instead of your code between % (i,j,k) indices of regular grid and % operation of exclusion: out =.
Determining the square root through successive approximation is implemented using the following algorithm:
Begin by guessing that the square root is x / 2. Call that guess g.
The actual square root must lie between g and x/g. At each step in the successive approximation, generate a new guess by averaging g and x/g.
Repeat step 2 until the values of g and x/g are as close together as the precision of the hardware allows. In Java, the best way to check for this condition is to test whether the average is equal to either of the values used to generate it.
What really confuses me is the last statement of step 3. I interpreted it as follows:
private double sqrt(double x) {
double g = x / 2;
while(true) {
double average = (g + x/g) / 2;
if(average == g || average == x/g) break;
g = average;
}
return g;
}
This seems to just cause an infinite loop. I am following the algorithm exactly, if the average equals either g or x/g (the two values used to generate it) then we have our answer ?
Why would anyone ever use that approach, when they could simply use the formulas for (2n^2) = 4n^2 and (n + 1)^2 = n^2 + 2n + 1, to populate each bit in the mantissa, and divide the exponent by two, multiplying the mantissa by two iff the the mod of the exponent with two equals 1?
To check if g and x/g are as close as the HW allow, look at the relative difference and compare
it with the epsilon for your floating point format. If it is within a small integer multiple of epsilon, you are OK.
Relative difference of x and y, see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relative_change_and_difference
The epsilon for 32-bit IEEE floats is about 1.0e-7, as in one of the other answers here, but that answer used the absolute rather than the relative difference.
In practice, that means something like:
Math.abs(g-x/g)/Math.max(Math.abs(g),Math.abs(x/g)) < 3.0e-7
Never compare floating point values for equality. The result is not reliable.
Use a epsilon like so:
if(Math.abs(average-g) < 1e-7 || Math.abs(average-x/g) < 1e-7)
You can change the epsilon value to be whatever you need. Probably best is something related to the original x.
How should I write this:
(d*a)mod(b)=1
in order to make it work properly in Ruby? I tried it on Wolfram, but their solution:
(da(b, d))/(dd) = -a/d
doesn't help me. I know a and b. I need to solve (d*a)mod(b)=1 for d in the form d=....
It's not clear what you're asking, and, depending on what you mean, a solution may be impossible.
First off, (da(b, d))/(dd) = -a/d, is not a solution to that equation; rather, it's a misinterpretation of the notation used for partial derivatives. What Wolfram Alpha actually gave you was:
, which is entirely unrelated.
Secondly, if you're trying to solve (d*a)mod(b)=1 for d, you may be out of luck. For any value of a and b, where a and b have a common prime factor, there are an infinite number of values of d that satisfy the equation. If a and b are coprime, you can use the formula given in LutzL's answer.
Additionally, if you're looking to perform symbolic manipulation of equations, Ruby is likely not the proper tool. Consider using a CAS, like Python's SymPy or Wolfram Mathematica.
Finally, if you're just trying to compute (d*a)mod(b), the modulo operator in Ruby is %, so you'd write (d*a)%(b).
You are looking for the modular inverse of a modulo b.
For any two numbers a,b the extended euclidean algorithm
g,u,v = xgcd(a, b)
gives coefficients u,v such that
u*a+v*b = g
and g is the greatest common divisor. You need a,b co-prime, preferably by ensuring that b is a prime number, to get g=1 and then you can set d=u.
xgcd(a,b)
if b = 0
return (a,1,0)
q,r = a divmod b
// a = q*b + r
g,u,v = xgcd(b, r)
// g = u*b + v*r = u*b + v*(a-q*b) = v*a+(u-q*v)*b
return g,v,u - q*v
Consider this way of solving the Subset sum problem:
def subset_summing_to_zero (activities):
subsets = {0: []}
for (activity, cost) in activities.iteritems():
old_subsets = subsets
subsets = {}
for (prev_sum, subset) in old_subsets.iteritems():
subsets[prev_sum] = subset
new_sum = prev_sum + cost
new_subset = subset + [activity]
if 0 == new_sum:
new_subset.sort()
return new_subset
else:
subsets[new_sum] = new_subset
return []
I have it from here:
http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2267392
There is also a comment which says that it is possible to make it "more efficient".
How?
Also, are there any other ways to solve the problem which are at least as fast as the one above?
Edit
I'm interested in any kind of idea which would lead to speed-up. I found:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subset_sum_problem#cite_note-Pisinger09-2
which mentions a linear time algorithm. But I don't have the paper, perhaps you, dear people, know how it works? An implementation perhaps? Completely different approach perhaps?
Edit 2
There is now a follow-up:
Fast solution to Subset sum algorithm by Pisinger
I respect the alacrity with which you're trying to solve this problem! Unfortunately, you're trying to solve a problem that's NP-complete, meaning that any further improvement that breaks the polynomial time barrier will prove that P = NP.
The implementation you pulled from Hacker News appears to be consistent with the pseudo-polytime dynamic programming solution, where any additional improvements must, by definition, progress the state of current research into this problem and all of its algorithmic isoforms. In other words: while a constant speedup is possible, you're very unlikely to see an algorithmic improvement to this solution to the problem in the context of this thread.
However, you can use an approximate algorithm if you require a polytime solution with a tolerable degree of error. In pseudocode blatantly stolen from Wikipedia, this would be:
initialize a list S to contain one element 0.
for each i from 1 to N do
let T be a list consisting of xi + y, for all y in S
let U be the union of T and S
sort U
make S empty
let y be the smallest element of U
add y to S
for each element z of U in increasing order do
//trim the list by eliminating numbers close to one another
//and throw out elements greater than s
if y + cs/N < z ≤ s, set y = z and add z to S
if S contains a number between (1 − c)s and s, output yes, otherwise no
Python implementation, preserving the original terms as closely as possible:
from bisect import bisect
def ssum(X,c,s):
""" Simple impl. of the polytime approximate subset sum algorithm
Returns True if the subset exists within our given error; False otherwise
"""
S = [0]
N = len(X)
for xi in X:
T = [xi + y for y in S]
U = set().union(T,S)
U = sorted(U) # Coercion to list
S = []
y = U[0]
S.append(y)
for z in U:
if y + (c*s)/N < z and z <= s:
y = z
S.append(z)
if not c: # For zero error, check equivalence
return S[bisect(S,s)-1] == s
return bisect(S,(1-c)*s) != bisect(S,s)
... where X is your bag of terms, c is your precision (between 0 and 1), and s is the target sum.
For more details, see the Wikipedia article.
(Additional reference, further reading on CSTheory.SE)
While my previous answer describes the polytime approximate algorithm to this problem, a request was specifically made for an implementation of Pisinger's polytime dynamic programming solution when all xi in x are positive:
from bisect import bisect
def balsub(X,c):
""" Simple impl. of Pisinger's generalization of KP for subset sum problems
satisfying xi >= 0, for all xi in X. Returns the state array "st", which may
be used to determine if an optimal solution exists to this subproblem of SSP.
"""
if not X:
return False
X = sorted(X)
n = len(X)
b = bisect(X,c)
r = X[-1]
w_sum = sum(X[:b])
stm1 = {}
st = {}
for u in range(c-r+1,c+1):
stm1[u] = 0
for u in range(c+1,c+r+1):
stm1[u] = 1
stm1[w_sum] = b
for t in range(b,n+1):
for u in range(c-r+1,c+r+1):
st[u] = stm1[u]
for u in range(c-r+1,c+1):
u_tick = u + X[t-1]
st[u_tick] = max(st[u_tick],stm1[u])
for u in reversed(range(c+1,c+X[t-1]+1)):
for j in reversed(range(stm1[u],st[u])):
u_tick = u - X[j-1]
st[u_tick] = max(st[u_tick],j)
return st
Wow, that was headache-inducing. This needs proofreading, because, while it implements balsub, I can't define the right comparator to determine if the optimal solution to this subproblem of SSP exists.
I don't know much python, but there is an approach called meet in the middle.
Pseudocode:
Divide activities into two subarrays, A1 and A2
for both A1 and A2, calculate subsets hashes, H1 and H2, the way You do it in Your question.
for each (cost, a1) in H1
if(H2.contains(-cost))
return a1 + H2[-cost];
This will allow You to double the number of elements of activities You can handle in reasonable time.
I apologize for "discussing" the problem, but a "Subset Sum" problem where the x values are bounded is not the NP version of the problem. Dynamic programing solutions are known for bounded x value problems. That is done by representing the x values as the sum of unit lengths. The Dynamic programming solutions have a number of fundamental iterations that is linear with that total length of the x's. However, the Subset Sum is in NP when the precision of the numbers equals N. That is, the number or base 2 place values needed to state the x's is = N. For N = 40, the x's have to be in the billions. In the NP problem the unit length of the x's increases exponentially with N.That is why the dynamic programming solutions are not a polynomial time solution to the NP Subset Sum problem. That being the case, there are still practical instances of the Subset Sum problem where the x's are bounded and the dynamic programming solution is valid.
Here are three ways to make the code more efficient:
The code stores a list of activities for each partial sum. It is more efficient in terms of both memory and time to just store the most recent activity needed to make the sum, and work out the rest by backtracking once a solution is found.
For each activity the dictionary is repopulated with the old contents (subsets[prev_sum] = subset). It is faster to simply grow a single dictionary
Splitting the values in two and applying a meet in the middle approach.
Applying the first two optimisations results in the following code which is more than 5 times faster:
def subset_summing_to_zero2 (activities):
subsets = {0:-1}
for (activity, cost) in activities.iteritems():
for prev_sum in subsets.keys():
new_sum = prev_sum + cost
if 0 == new_sum:
new_subset = [activity]
while prev_sum:
activity = subsets[prev_sum]
new_subset.append(activity)
prev_sum -= activities[activity]
return sorted(new_subset)
if new_sum in subsets: continue
subsets[new_sum] = activity
return []
Also applying the third optimisation results in something like:
def subset_summing_to_zero3 (activities):
A=activities.items()
mid=len(A)//2
def make_subsets(A):
subsets = {0:-1}
for (activity, cost) in A:
for prev_sum in subsets.keys():
new_sum = prev_sum + cost
if new_sum and new_sum in subsets: continue
subsets[new_sum] = activity
return subsets
subsets = make_subsets(A[:mid])
subsets2 = make_subsets(A[mid:])
def follow_trail(new_subset,subsets,s):
while s:
activity = subsets[s]
new_subset.append(activity)
s -= activities[activity]
new_subset=[]
for s in subsets:
if -s in subsets2:
follow_trail(new_subset,subsets,s)
follow_trail(new_subset,subsets2,-s)
if len(new_subset):
break
return sorted(new_subset)
Define bound to be the largest absolute value of the elements.
The algorithmic benefit of the meet in the middle approach depends a lot on bound.
For a low bound (e.g. bound=1000 and n=300) the meet in the middle only gets a factor of about 2 improvement other the first improved method. This is because the dictionary called subsets is densely populated.
However, for a high bound (e.g. bound=100,000 and n=30) the meet in the middle takes 0.03 seconds compared to 2.5 seconds for the first improved method (and 18 seconds for the original code)
For high bounds, the meet in the middle will take about the square root of the number of operations of the normal method.
It may seem surprising that meet in the middle is only twice as fast for low bounds. The reason is that the number of operations in each iteration depends on the number of keys in the dictionary. After adding k activities we might expect there to be 2**k keys, but if bound is small then many of these keys will collide so we will only have O(bound.k) keys instead.
Thought I'd share my Scala solution for the discussed pseudo-polytime algorithm described in wikipedia. It's a slightly modified version: it figures out how many unique subsets there are. This is very much related to a HackerRank problem described at https://www.hackerrank.com/challenges/functional-programming-the-sums-of-powers. Coding style might not be excellent, I'm still learning Scala :) Maybe this is still helpful for someone.
object Solution extends App {
var input = "1000\n2"
System.setIn(new ByteArrayInputStream(input.getBytes()))
println(calculateNumberOfWays(readInt, readInt))
def calculateNumberOfWays(X: Int, N: Int) = {
val maxValue = Math.pow(X, 1.0/N).toInt
val listOfValues = (1 until maxValue + 1).toList
val listOfPowers = listOfValues.map(value => Math.pow(value, N).toInt)
val lists = (0 until maxValue).toList.foldLeft(List(List(0)): List[List[Int]]) ((newList, i) =>
newList :+ (newList.last union (newList.last.map(y => y + listOfPowers.apply(i)).filter(z => z <= X)))
)
lists.last.count(_ == X)
}
}