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.
Related
first of all let me introduce you to the problem.
Let's say that we have one sensor that is measuring something, tank oil/water level etc.
Sensor is calibrated for taking measurements from 0-3.5 [m].
According to that, we recieve feedback in percentage from 0 to 100 %.
Now, let's say that instead 0 [m] being my zero, we want that 1,2 [m] is 0%, and respectively 2,4 [m] to be 100%.
First thing I did is to calculate how much are values of 1,2 [m] and 2,4 [m] in original scale.
1,2[m] -> 34.2% and 2,4[m] -> 68,4%
So value of 34.2% on the original scale corresponds to 0% on new scale.
Value of 68.4% on the original scale corresponds to 100% on new scale.
Now if I want to rescale the original scale to be between these two values, how would you do it?
I suspect next step is substituing new "zero" (34,2 %) from measured value, and then I would need to map first one to other one, or other one to first one...something like that.
Thanks in advance!! Sorry if it is not clear, I tried to be clear as much as possible with problem.
P.S. Solution is appreciated, but I am looking forward to hearing explanation, this would be better.
First, let's give names to these values.
The original height range is:
Hmin_0 = 0[m], Hmax_0 = 3.5[m]
The new height range is:
Hmin_1 = 1.2[m], Hmax_1 = 2.4[m]
Let's call x the sensor's output. We have:
x(h=0[m])=0 %
x(h=3.5[m])=100 %
Let's call x0 and x1 the sensor's reading for h = Hmin_1 and h = Hmax_1 respectively:
x0=Hmin_1/(Hmax_0-Hmin_0)*100 [%]
x1=Hmax_1/(Hmax_0-Hmin_0)*100 [%]
We are looking for a function f(x)=a*x+b such that:
f(x0) = 0
f(x1) = 100
You can check that the function:
f(x)=(x-x0)/(x1-x0)*100 (equ.1)
is the one you are looking for. Indeed, f(x0)=0 and f(x1)=100 as required.
Or, if you're not convinced, you can solve the system of 2 linear equations:
a * x0 + b = 0 (equ. 2)
a * x1 + b = 100 (equ. 3)
which will give:
a=100/(x1-x0)
b=-x0*100/(x1-x0).
Regards
Sensor is calibrated for taking measurements from 0-3.5 [m].
Let max = 3.5
we receive feedback in percentage from 0 to 100 %.
Let's call it feedback
we want that 1.2 [m] is 0%, and respectively 2.4 [m] to be 100%.
Let low = 1.2 and high = 2.4
Then the mapping can be derived as follows:
First convert feedback to the original absolute measure, i.e. max * feedback/100
Then subtract low so to make sure that an absolute value of low maps to 0.
Then apply a coeficient so that the absolute distance of high - low maps to 100. That coefficient is thus 100 / (high - low).
That's it. The final formula is thus:
(max * feedback / 100 - low) * 100 / (high - low)
Or equivalent:
(max * feedback - low * 100) / (high - low)
Here is a JavaScript snippet that makes this conversion for feedback in [0, 10, 20, ..., 100]:
let max = 3.5;
let low = 1.2;
let high = 2.4;
for (let feedback = 0; feedback <= 100; feedback += 10) {
let output = (max * feedback - low * 100) / (high - low);
console.log(feedback, "=>", output);
}
Closed. This question does not meet Stack Overflow guidelines. It is not currently accepting answers.
This question does not appear to be about programming within the scope defined in the help center.
Closed 1 year ago.
Improve this question
I'm working with SVR, and using this resource. Erverything is super clear, with epsilon intensive loss function (from figure). Prediction comes with tube, to cover most training sample, and generalize bounds, using support vectors.
Then we have this explanation. This can be described by introducing (non-negative) slack variables , to measure the deviation of training samples outside -insensitive zone. I understand this error, outside tube, but don't know, how we can use this in optimization. Could somebody explain this?
In local source. I'm trying to achieve very simple optimization solution, without libraries. This what I have for loss function.
import numpy as np
# Kernel func, linear by default
def hypothesis(x, weight, k=None):
k = k if k else lambda z : z
k_x = np.vectorize(k)(x)
return np.dot(k_x, np.transpose(weight))
.......
import math
def boundary_loss(x, y, weight, epsilon):
prediction = hypothesis(x, weight)
scatter = np.absolute(
np.transpose(y) - prediction)
bound = lambda z: z \
if z >= epsilon else 0
return np.sum(np.vectorize(bound)(scatter))
First, let's look at the objective function. The first term, 1/2 * w^2 (wish this site had LaTeX support but this will suffice) correlates with the margin of the SVM. The article you linked doesn't, in my opinion, explain this very well and calls this term describing "the model's complexity", but perhaps this is not the best way of explaining it. Minimizing this term maximizes the margin (while still representing the data well), which is the predominant goal of using SVM's doing regression.
Warning, Math Heavy Explanation: The reason this is the case is that when maximizing the margin, you want to find the "farthest" non-outlier points right on the margin and minimize its distance. Let this farthest point be x_n. We want to find its Euclidean distance d from the plane f(w, x) = 0, which I will rewrite as w^T * x + b = 0 (where w^T is just the transpose of the weights matrix so that we can multiply the two). To find the distance, let us first normalize the plane such that |w^T * x_n + b| = epsilon, which we can do WLOG as w is still able to form all possible planes of the form w^T * x + b= 0. Then, let's note that w is perpendicular to the plane. This is obvious if you have dealt a lot with planes (particularly in vector calculus), but can be proven by choosing two points on the plane x_1 and x_2, then noticing that w^T * x_1 + b = 0, and w^T * x_2 + b = 0. Subtracting the two equations we get w^T(x_1 - x_2) = 0. Since x_1 - x_2 is just any vector strictly on the plane, and its dot product with w is 0, then we know that w is perpendicular to the plane. Finally, to actually calculate the distance between x_n and the plane, we take the vector formed by x_n' and some point on the plane x' (The vectors would then be x_n - x', and projecting it onto the vector w. Doing this, we get d = |w * (x_n - x') / |w||, which we can rewrite as d = (1 / |w|) * | w^T * x_n - w^T x'|, and then add and subtract b to the inside to get d = (1 / |w|) * | w^T * x_n + b - w^T * x' - b|. Notice that w^T * x_n + b is epsilon (from our normalization above), and that w^T * x' + b is 0, as this is just a point on our plane. Thus, d = epsilon / |w|. Notice that maximizing this distance subject to our constraint of finding the x_n and having |w^T * x_n + b| = epsilon is a difficult optimization problem. What we can do is restructure this optimization problem as minimizing 1/2 * w^T * w subject to the first two constraints in the picture you attached, that is, |y_i - f(x_i, w)| <= epsilon. You may think that I have forgotten the slack variables, and this is true, but when just focusing on this term and ignoring the second term, we ignore the slack variables for now, I will bring them back later. The reason these two optimizations are equivalent is not obvious, but the underlying reason lies in discrimination boundaries, which you are free to read more about (it's a lot more math that frankly I don't think this answer needs more of). Then, note that minimizing 1/2 * w^T * w is the same as minimizing 1/2 * |w|^2, which is the desired result we were hoping for. End of the Heavy Math
Now, notice that we want to make the margin big, but not so big that includes noisy outliers like the one in the picture you provided.
Thus, we introduce a second term. To motivate the margin down to a reasonable size the slack variables are introduced, (I will call them p and p* because I don't want to type out "psi" every time). These slack variables will ignore everything in the margin, i.e. those are the points that do not harm the objective and the ones that are "correct" in terms of their regression status. However, the points outside the margin are outliers, they do not reflect well on the regression, so we penalize them simply for existing. The slack error function that is given there is relatively easy to understand, it just adds up the slack error of every point (p_i + p*_i) for i = 1,...,N, and then multiplies by a modulating constant C which determines the relative importance of the two terms. A low value of C means that we are okay with having outliers, so the margin will be thinned and more outliers will be produced. A high value of C indicates that we care a lot about not having slack, so the margin will be made bigger to accommodate these outliers at the expense of representing the overall data less well.
A few things to note about p and p*. First, note that they are both always >= 0. The constraint in your picture shows this, but it also intuitively makes sense as slack should always add to the error, so it is positive. Second, notice that if p > 0, then p* = 0 and vice versa as an outlier can only be on one side of the margin. Last, all points inside the margin will have p and p* be 0, since they are fine where they are and thus do not contribute to the loss.
Notice that with the introduction of the slack variables, if you have any outliers then you won't want the condition from the first term, that is, |w^T * x_n + b| = epsilon as the x_n would be this outlier, and your whole model would be screwed up. What we allow for, then, is to change the constraint to be |w^T * x_n + b| = epsilon + (p + p*). When translated to the new optimization's constraint, we get the full constraint from the picture you attached, that is, |y_i - f(x_i, w)| <= epsilon + p + p*. (I combined the two equations into one here, but you could rewrite them as the picture is and that would be the same thing).
Hopefully after covering all this up, the motivation for the objective function and the corresponding slack variables makes sense to you.
If I understand the question correctly, you also want code to calculate this objective/loss function, which I think isn't too bad. I have not tested this (yet), but I think this should be what you want.
# Function for calculating the error/loss for a SVM. I assume that:
# - 'x' is 2d array representing the vectors of the data points
# - 'y' is an array representing the values each vector actually gives
# - 'weights' is an array of weights that we tune for the regression
# - 'epsilon' is a scalar representing the breadth of our margin.
def optimization_objective(x, y, weights, epsilon):
# Calculates first term of objective (note that norm^2 = dot product)
margin_term = np.dot(weight, weight) / 2
# Now calculate second term of objective. First get the sum of slacks.
slack_sum = 0
for i in range(len(x)): # For each observation
# First find the absolute distance between expected and observed.
diff = abs(hypothesis(x[i]) - y[i])
# Now subtract epsilon
diff -= epsilon
# If diff is still more than 0, then it is an 'outlier' and will have slack.
slack = max(0, diff)
# Add it to the slack sum
slack_sum += slack
# Now we have the slack_sum, so then multiply by C (I picked this as 1 aribtrarily)
C = 1
slack_term = C * slack_sum
# Now, simply return the sum of the two terms, and we are done.
return margin_term + slack_term
I got this function working on my computer with small data, and you may have to change it a little to work with your data if, for example, the arrays are structured differently, but the idea is there. Also, I am not the most proficient with python, so this may not be the most efficient implementation, but my intent was to make it understandable.
Now, note that this just calculates the error/loss (whatever you want to call it). To actually minimize it requires going into Lagrangians and intense quadratic programming which is a much more daunting task. There are libraries available for doing this but if you want to do this library free as you are doing with this, I wish you good luck because doing that is not a walk in the park.
Finally, I would like to note that most of this information I got from notes I took in my ML class I took last year, and the professor (Dr. Abu-Mostafa) was a great help to have me learn the material. The lectures for this class are online (by the same prof), and the pertinent ones for this topic are here and here (although in my very biased opinion you should watch all the lectures, they were a great help). Leave a comment/question if you need anything cleared up or if you think I made a mistake somewhere. If you still don't understand, I can try to edit my answer to make more sense. Hope this helps!
I'm working on an iris recognition algorithm that processes these kind of images into unique codes for identification and authentication purposes.
After filtering, intelligently thresholding, then finding edges in the image, the next step is obviously to fit circles to the pupil and iris. I've looked around the the technique to use is the circular Hough Transform. Here is the code for my implementation. Sorry about the cryptic variable names.
print "Populating Accumulator..."
# Loop over image rows
for x in range(w):
# Loop over image columns
for y in range(h):
# Only process black pixels
if inp[x,y] == 0:
# px,py = 0 means pupil, otherwise pupil center
if px == 0:
ra = r_min
rb = r_max
else:
rr = sqrt((px-x)*(px-x)+(py-y)*(py-y))
ra = int(rr-3)
rb = int(rr+3)
# a is the width of the image, b is the height
for _a in range(a):
for _b in range(b):
for _r in range(rb-ra):
s1 = x - (_a + a_min)
s2 = y - (_b + b_min)
r1 = _r + ra
if (s1 * s1 + s2 * s2 == r1 * r1):
new = acc[_a][_b][_r]
if new >= maxVotes:
maxVotes = new
print "Done"
# Average all circles with the most votes
for _a in range(a):
for _b in range(b):
for _r in range(r):
if acc[_a][_b][_r] >= maxVotes-1:
total_a += _a + a_min
total_b += _b + b_min
total_r += _r + r_min
amount += 1
top_a = total_a / amount
top_b = total_b / amount
top_r = total_r / amount
print top_a,top_b,top_r
This is written in python and uses the Python Imaging Library to do image processing. As you can see, this is a very naive brute force method of finding circles. It works, but takes several minutes. The basic idea is to draw circles from rmin to rmax wherever there is a black pixel (from thresholding and edge-detection), the build an accumulator array of the number of times a location on the image is "voted" on. Whichever x, y, and r has the most votes is the circle of interest. I tried to use the fact that the iris and pupil have about the same center (variables ra and rb) to reduce some of the complexity of the r loop, but the pupil detection takes so long that it doesn't matter.
Now, obviously my implementation is very naive. It uses a three dimensional parameter space (x, y, and r), which unfortunately makes it run slower than is acceptable. What kind of improvements can I make? Is there any way to reduce this to a two-dimensional parameter space? Is there a more efficient way of accessing and setting pixels that I'm not aware of?
On a side note, are there any other techniques for improving the overall runtime of this algorithm that I'm not aware of? Such as methods to approximate the maximum radius of the pupil or iris?
Note: I've tried to use OpenCV for this as well, but I could not tune the parameters enough to be consistently accurate.
Let me know if there's any other information that you need.
NOTE: Once again I misinterpreted my own code. It is technically 5-dimensional, but the 3-dimensional x,y,r loop only operates on black pixels.
Assuming you want the position of the circle rather than a measure of R.
If you have a decent estimate of the possible range of R then a common technique is to run the algorithm for a first guess of fixed R, adjust it and try again.
I have a point that moves (in one dimension), and I need it to move smoothly. So I think that it's velocity has to be a continuous function and I need to control the acceleration and then calculate it's velocity and position.
The algorithm doesn't seem something obvious to me, but I guess this must be a common problem, I just can't find the solution.
Notes:
The final destination of the object may change while it's moving and the movement needs to be smooth anyway.
I guess that a naive implementation would produce bouncing, and I need to avoid that.
This is a perfect candidate for using a "critically damped spring".
Conceptually you attach the point to the target point with a spring, or piece of elastic. The spring is damped so that you get no 'bouncing'. You can control how fast the system reacts by changing a constant called the "SpringConstant". This is essentially how strong the piece of elastic is.
Basically you apply two forces to the position, then integrate this over time. The first force is that applied by the spring, Fs = SpringConstant * DistanceToTarget. The second is the damping force, Fd = -CurrentVelocity * 2 * sqrt( SpringConstant ).
The CurrentVelocity forms part of the state of the system, and can be initialised to zero.
In each step, you multiply the sum of these two forces by the time step. This gives you the change of the value of the CurrentVelocity. Multiply this by the time step again and it will give you the displacement.
We add this to the actual position of the point.
In C++ code:
float CriticallyDampedSpring( float a_Target,
float a_Current,
float & a_Velocity,
float a_TimeStep )
{
float currentToTarget = a_Target - a_Current;
float springForce = currentToTarget * SPRING_CONSTANT;
float dampingForce = -a_Velocity * 2 * sqrt( SPRING_CONSTANT );
float force = springForce + dampingForce;
a_Velocity += force * a_TimeStep;
float displacement = a_Velocity * a_TimeStep;
return a_Current + displacement;
}
In systems I was working with a value of around 5 was a good point to start experimenting with the value of the spring constant. Set it too high will result in too fast a reaction, and too low the point will react too slowly.
Note, you might be best to make a class that keeps the velocity state rather than have to pass it into the function over and over.
I hope this is helpful, good luck :)
EDIT: In case it's useful for others, it's easy to apply this to 2 or 3 dimensions. In this case you can just apply the CriticallyDampedSpring independently once for each dimension. Depending on the motion you want you might find it better to work in polar coordinates (for 2D), or spherical coordinates (for 3D).
I'd do something like Alex Deem's answer for trajectory planning, but with limits on force and velocity:
In pseudocode:
xtarget: target position
vtarget: target velocity*
x: object position
v: object velocity
dt: timestep
F = Ki * (xtarget-x) + Kp * (vtarget-v);
F = clipMagnitude(F, Fmax);
v = v + F * dt;
v = clipMagnitude(v, vmax);
x = x + v * dt;
clipMagnitude(y, ymax):
r = magnitude(y) / ymax
if (r <= 1)
return y;
else
return y * (1/r);
where Ki and Kp are tuning constants, Fmax and vmax are maximum force and velocity. This should work for 1-D, 2-D, or 3-D situations (magnitude(y) = abs(y) in 1-D, otherwise use vector magnitude).
It's not quite clear exactly what you're after, but I'm going to assume the following:
There is some maximum acceleration;
You want the object to have stopped moving when it reaches the destination;
Unlike velocity, you do not require acceleration to be continuous.
Let A be the maximum acceleration (by which I mean the acceleration is always between -A and A).
The equation you want is
v_f^2 = v_i^2 + 2 a d
where v_f = 0 is the final velocity, v_i is the initial (current) velocity, and d is the distance to the destination (when you switch from acceleration A to acceleration -A -- that is, from speeding up to slowing down; here I'm assuming d is positive).
Solving:
d = v_i^2 / (2A)
is the distance. (The negatives cancel).
If the current distance remaining is greater than d, speed up as quickly as possible. Otherwise, begin slowing down.
Let's say you update the object's position every t_step seconds. Then:
new_position = old_position + old_velocity * t_step + (1/2)a(t_step)^2
new_velocity = old_velocity + a * t_step.
If the destination is between new_position and old_position (i.e., the object reached its destination in between updates), simply set new_position = destination.
You need an easing formula, which you would call at a set interval, passing in the time elapsed, start point, end point and duration you want the animation to be.
Doing time-based calculations will account for slow clients and other random hiccups. Since it calculates on time elapsed vs. the time in which it has to compkete, it will account for slow intervals between calls when returning how far along your point should be in the animation.
The jquery.easing plugin has a ton of easing functions you can look at:
http://gsgd.co.uk/sandbox/jquery/easing/
I've found it best to pass in 0 and 1 as my start and end point, since it will return a floating point between the two, you can easily apply it to the real value you are modifying using multiplication.
I am trying to build a function grapher,
The user enters xmin, xmax, ymin, ymax, function.
I got the x, y for all points.
Now i want to translate this initial referential to a Canvas starting at 0,0 up to
250,250.
Is there a short way or should i just check
if x < 0
new x = (x - xmin) * (250 / (xmax - xmin)) ?
etc ..
Also this basic approach does not optimise sampling.
For example if my function f(x) = 5 i dont need to sample the xrange in 500 points,
i only need two points. I could do some heuristic checks.
But for a function like sin(2/x) i need more sampling around x (-1,1) how would you aproach such a thing ?
Thanks
Instead of iterating over x in the original coordinates, iterate over the canvas and then transform back to the original coordinates:
for (int xcanvas = 0; xcanvas <= 250; i++) {
double x = ((xmax - xmin) * xcanvas / 250.0) + xmin;
double y = f(x);
int ycanvas = 250 * (y - ymin) / (ymax - ymin) + .5;
// Plot (xcanvas, ycanvas)
}
This gives you exactly one function evaluation for each column of the canvas.
You can estimate the derivative (if you have one).
You can use bidirectional (dichotomic) approach: estimate the difference and split the segment if necessary.
I think I would start by reasoning about this in terms of transformations from canvas to maths contexts.
(canvas_x, canvas_y) -> (maths_x, maths_y)
(maths_x, maths_y) -> (canvas_x, canvas_y)
maths_x -> maths_y
You iterate over the points that a displayable, looping over canvas_x.
This would translate to some simple functions:
maths_x = maths_x_from_canvas_x(canvas_x, min_maths_x, max_maths_x)
maths_y = maths_y_from_maths_x(maths_x) # this is the function to be plotted.
canvas_y = canvas_y_from_maths_y(maths_y, min_maths_y, max_maths_y)
if (canvas_y not out of bounds) plot(canvas_x, canvas_y)
Once you get here, it's relatively simple to write these simple functions into code.
Optimize from here.
I think that for this approach, you won't need to know too much about sample frequencies, because you sample at a rate appropriate for the display. It wouldn't be optimal - your example of y = 5 is a good example, but you'd be guaranteed not to sample more than you can display.