Using assorted matrix math, I've solved a system of equations resulting in coefficients for a polynomial of degree 'n'
Ax^(n-1) + Bx^(n-2) + ... + Z
I then evaulate the polynomial over a given x range, essentially I'm rendering the polynomial curve. Now here's the catch. I've done this work in one coordinate system we'll call "data space". Now I need to present the same curve in another coordinate space. It is easy to transform input/output to and from the coordinate spaces, but the end user is only interested in the coefficients [A,B,....,Z] since they can reconstruct the polynomial on their own. How can I present a second set of coefficients [A',B',....,Z'] which represent the same shaped curve in a different coordinate system.
If it helps, I'm working in 2D space. Plain old x's and y's. I also feel like this may involve multiplying the coefficients by a transformation matrix? Would it some incorporate the scale/translation factor between the coordinate systems? Would it be the inverse of this matrix? I feel like I'm headed in the right direction...
Update: Coordinate systems are linearly related. Would have been useful info eh?
The problem statement is slightly unclear, so first I will clarify my own interpretation of it:
You have a polynomial function
f(x) = Cnxn + Cn-1xn-1 + ... + C0
[I changed A, B, ... Z into Cn, Cn-1, ..., C0 to more easily work with linear algebra below.]
Then you also have a transformation such as: z = ax + b that you want to use to find coefficients for the same polynomial, but in terms of z:
f(z) = Dnzn + Dn-1zn-1 + ... + D0
This can be done pretty easily with some linear algebra. In particular, you can define an (n+1)×(n+1) matrix T which allows us to do the matrix multiplication
d = T * c ,
where d is a column vector with top entry D0, to last entry Dn, column vector c is similar for the Ci coefficients, and matrix T has (i,j)-th [ith row, jth column] entry tij given by
tij = (j choose i) ai bj-i.
Where (j choose i) is the binomial coefficient, and = 0 when i > j. Also, unlike standard matrices, I'm thinking that i,j each range from 0 to n (usually you start at 1).
This is basically a nice way to write out the expansion and re-compression of the polynomial when you plug in z=ax+b by hand and use the binomial theorem.
If I understand your question correctly, there is no guarantee that the function will remain polynomial after you change coordinates. For example, let y=x^2, and the new coordinate system x'=y, y'=x. Now the equation becomes y' = sqrt(x'), which isn't polynomial.
Tyler's answer is the right answer if you have to compute this change of variable z = ax+b many times (I mean for many different polynomials). On the other hand, if you have to do it just once, it is much faster to combine the computation of the coefficients of the matrix with the final evaluation. The best way to do it is to symbolically evaluate your polynomial at point (ax+b) by Hörner's method:
you store the polynomial coefficients in a vector V (at the beginning, all coefficients are zero), and for i = n to 0, you multiply it by (ax+b) and add Ci.
adding Ci means adding it to the constant term
multiplying by (ax+b) means multiplying all coefficients by b into a vector K1, multiplying all coefficients by a and shifting them away from the constant term into a vector K2, and putting K1+K2 back into V.
This will be easier to program, and faster to compute.
Note that changing y into w = cy+d is really easy. Finally, as mattiast points out, a general change of coordinates will not give you a polynomial.
Technical note: if you still want to compute matrix T (as defined by Tyler), you should compute it by using a weighted version of Pascal's rule (this is what the Hörner computation does implicitely):
ti,j = b ti,j-1 + a ti-1,j-1
This way, you compute it simply, column after column, from left to right.
You have the equation:
y = Ax^(n-1) + Bx^(n-2) + ... + Z
In xy space, and you want it in some x'y' space. What you need is transformation functions f(x) = x' and g(y) = y' (or h(x') = x and j(y') = y). In the first case you need to solve for x and solve for y. Once you have x and y, you can substituted those results into your original equation and solve for y'.
Whether or not this is trivial depends on the complexity of the functions used to transform from one space to another. For example, equations such as:
5x = x' and 10y = y'
are extremely easy to solve for the result
y' = 2Ax'^(n-1) + 2Bx'^(n-2) + ... + 10Z
If the input spaces are linearly related, then yes, a matrix should be able to transform one set of coefficients to another. For example, if you had your polynomial in your "original" x-space:
ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d
and you wanted to transform into a different w-space where w = px+q
then you want to find a', b', c', and d' such that
ax^3 + bx^2 + cx + d = a'w^3 + b'w^2 + c'w + d'
and with some algebra,
a'w^3 + b'w^2 + c'w + d' = a'p^3x^3 + 3a'p^2qx^2 + 3a'pq^2x + a'q^3 + b'p^2x^2 + 2b'pqx + b'q^2 + c'px + c'q + d'
therefore
a = a'p^3
b = 3a'p^2q + b'p^2
c = 3a'pq^2 + 2b'pq + c'p
d = a'q^3 + b'q^2 + c'q + d'
which can be rewritten as a matrix problem and solved.
Related
One of the questions I've come across in my textbook is:
In Computer Graphics transformations are applied on many vertices on the screen. Translation, Rotations
and Scaling.
Assume you’re operating on a vertex with 3 values (X, Y, 1). X, Y being the X Y coordinates and 1 is always
constant
A Translation is done on X as X = X + X’ and on Y as Y = Y + Y’
X’ and Y’ being the values to translate by
A scaling is done on X as X = aX and on Y as Y = bY
a and b being the scaling factors
Propose the best way to store these linear equations and an optimal way to calculate them on each vertex
It is hinted that it involves matrix multiplication and Strassen. However, I'm not sure where to start here? It doesn't involve complex code and it states to come up with something simple to showcase my idea but all Strassen implementations I've come across are definitely large enough to not call complex. What should my thought process be here?
Would my matrix look like this? 3x3 for each equation or do I combine them all in one?
[ X X X']
[ Y Y Y']
[ 1 1 1 ]
What you're trying to find is a transformation matrix, which you can then use to transform some current (x, y) point into the next (nx, ny) point. In other words, we want
start = Vec([x, y, 1])
matrix = Matrix(...)
next = start * matrix // * is matrix multiplication
Now, if your next is supposed to look something like Vec([a * x + x', b * y + y', 1]), we can work our way backwards to figure out the matrix. First, look at just the x component. We're going to effectively take the dot product of our start vector and the topmost row of our matrix, yielding a * x + x'.
If we write it out more explicitly, we want a * x + 0 * y + x' * 1. Hopefully that makes it a bit more easy to see that the vector we want to dot start with is Vec([a, 0, x']). We can repeat this for the remaining two rows of the matrix, and obtain the following matrix:
matrix = Matrix(
[[a, 0, x'],
[0, b, y'],
[0, 0, 1]])
Double check that this makes sense and seems reasonable to you. If we take our start vector and multiply it with this matrix, we'll get the translated vector next as Vec([a * x + x', b * y + y', 1]).
Now for the real beauty of this- the matrix itself doesn't care at all about what our inputs are, its completely independent. So, we can repeatedly apply this matrix over and over again to step forward through more scaling and translations.
next_next_next = start * matrix * matrix * matrix
Knowing this, we can actually compute many steps ahead really quickly, using some mathematical tricks. Multiplying but the matrix n times is the same as multiplying by matrix raised to the nth power. And fortunately, we have an efficient method for computing a matrix to a power- its called exponentiation by squaring (actually applies to regular numbers as well, but here we're concerned with multiplying matrices, and the logic still applies). In a nutshell, rather than multiplying the number or matrix over and over again n times, we square it and multiply intermediate values by the original number / matrix at the right times, to very rapidly approach the desired power (in log(n) multiplications).
This is almost certainly what your professor is wanting you to realize. You can simulate n translations / scalings / rotations (yes, there are rotation matrices as well) in log(n) time.
Extra Mile
What's even cooler is that using some more advanced linear algebra, you can actually do it even faster. You can diagonalize your matrix (meaning you rewrite your matrix as P * D * P^-1, that is, the product of a some matrix P with a matrix D where the only non-zero elements are along the main diagonal, multiplied by the inverse of P). You can then raise this diagonalized matrix to a power really quickly, because (P * D * P^-1) * (P * D * P^-1) simplifies to P * D * D * P^-1, and this generalizes to:
M^N = (P * D * P^-1)^N = (P * D^N * P^-1)
Since D only has non-zero elements along its diagonal, you can raise it to any power by just raising each individual element to that power, which is just the normal cost of integer multiplication, across as many elements as your matrix is wide/tall. This is stupidly fast, and then you just do a single matrix multiplication on either side to arrive at M^N, and then multiply your start vector with this, for your end result.
I am working on a genetic algorithm. Here is how it works :
Input : a list of 2D points
Input : the degree of the curve
Output : the equation of the curve that passes through points the best way (try to minimize the sum of vertical distances from point's Ys to the curve)
The algorithm finds good equations for simple straight lines and for 2-degree equations.
But for 4 points and 3 degree equations and more, it gets more complicated. I cannot find the right combination of parameters : sometimes I have to wait 5 minutes and the curve found is still very bad. I tried modifying many parameters, from population size to number of parents selected...
Do famous combinations/theorems in GA programming can help me ?
Thank you ! :)
Based on what is given, you would need a polynomial interpolation in which, the degree of the equation is number of points minus 1.
n = (Number of points) - 1
Now having said that, let's assume you have 5 points that need to be fitted and I am going to define them in a variable:
var points = [[0,0], [2,3], [4,-1], [5,7], [6,9]]
Please be noted the array of the points have been ordered by the x values which you need to do.
Then the equation would be:
f(x) = a1*x^4 + a2*x^3 + a3*x^2 + a4*x + a5
Now based on definition (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polynomial_interpolation#Constructing_the_interpolation_polynomial), the coefficients are computed like this:
Now you need to used the referenced page to come up with the coefficient.
It is not that complicated, for the polynomial interpolation of degree n you get the following equation:
p(x) = c0 + c1 * x + c2 * x^2 + ... + cn * x^n = y
This means we need n + 1 genes for the coefficients c0 to cn.
The fitness function is the sum of all squared distances from the points to the curve, below is the formula for the squared distance. Like this a smaller value is obviously better, if you don't want that you can take the inverse (1 / sum of squared distances):
d_squared(xi, yi) = (yi - p(xi))^2
I think for faster conversion you could limit the mutation, e.g. when mutating choose a new value with 20% probability between min and max (e.g. -1000 and 1000) and with 80% probabilty a random factor between 0.8 and 1.2 with which you multiply the old value.
and thank you for the attention you're paying to my question :)
My question is about finding an (efficient enough) algorithm for finding orthogonal polynomials of a given weight function f.
I've tried to simply apply the Gram-Schmidt algorithm but this one is not efficient enough. Indeed, it requires O(n^2) integrals. But my goal is to use this algorithm in order to find Hankel determinants of a function f. So a "direct" computation wich consists in simply compute the matrix and take its determinants requires only 2*n - 1 integrals.
But I want to use the theorem stating that the Hankel determinant of order n of f is a product of the n first leading coefficients of the orthogonal polynomials of f. The reason is that when n gets larger (say about 20), Hankel determinant gets really big and my goal is to divided it by an other big constant (for n = 20, the constant is of order 10^103). My idea is then to "dilute" the computation of the constant in the product of the leading coefficients.
I hope there is a O(n) algorithm to compute the n first orthogonal polynomials :) I've done some digging and found nothing in that direction for general function f (f can be any smooth function, actually).
EDIT: I'll precise here what the objects I'm talking about are.
1) A Hankel determinant of order n is the determinant of a square matrix which is constant on the skew diagonals. Thus for example
a b c
b c d
c d e
is a Hankel matrix of size 3 by 3.
2) If you have a function f : R -> R, you can associate to f its "kth moment" which is defined as (I'll write it in tex) f_k := \int_{\mathbb{R}} f(x) x^k dx
With this, you can create a Hankel matrix A_n(f) whose entries are (A_n(f)){ij} = f{i+j-2}, that is something of the like
f_0 f_1 f_2
f_1 f_2 f_3
f_2 f_3 f_4
With this in mind, it is easy to define the Hankel determinant of f which is simply
H_n(f) := det(A_n(f)). (Of course, it is understood that f has sufficient decay at infinity, this means that all the moments are well defined. A typical choice for f could be the gaussian f(x) = exp(-x^2), or any continuous function on a compact set of R...)
3) What I call orthogonal polynomials of f is a set of polynomials (p_n) such that
\int_{\mathbb{R}} f(x) p_j(x) p_k(x) is 1 if j = k and 0 otherwize.
(They are called like that since they form an orthonormal basis of the vector space of polynomials with respect to the scalar product
(p|q) = \int_{\mathbb{R}} f(x) p(x) q(x) dx
4) Now, it is basic linear algebra that from any basis of a vector space equipped with a scalar product, you can built a orthonormal basis thanks to the Gram-Schmidt algorithm. This is where the n^2 integrations comes from. You start from the basis 1, x, x^2, ..., x^n. Then you need n(n-1) integrals for the family to be orthogonal, and you need n more in order to normalize them.
5) There is a theorem saying that if f : R -> R is a function having sufficient decay at infinity, then we have that its Hankel determinant H_n(f) is equal to
H_n(f) = \prod_{j = 0}^{n-1} \kappa_j^{-2}
where \kappa_j is the leading coefficient of the j+1th orthogonal polynomial of f.
Thank you for your answer!
(PS: I tagged octave because I work in octave so, with a bit of luck (but I doubt it), there is a built-in function or a package already done managing this kind of think)
Orthogonal polynomials obey a recurrence relation, which we can write as
P[n+1] = (X-a[n])*P[n] - b[n-1]*P[n-1]
P[0] = 1
P[1] = X-a[0]
and we can compute the a, b coefficients by
a[n] = <X*P[n]|P[n]> / c[n]
b[n-1] = c[n-1]/c[n]
where
c[n] = <P[n]|P[n]>
(Here < | > is your inner product).
However I cannot vouch for the stability of this process at large n.
How to find the first perfect square from the function: f(n)=An²+Bn+C? B and C are given. A,B,C and n are always integer numbers, and A is always 1. The problem is finding n.
Example: A=1, B=2182, C=3248
The answer for the first perfect square is n=16, because sqrt(f(16))=196.
My algorithm increments n and tests if the square root is a integer nunber.
This algorithm is very slow when B or C is large, because it takes n calculations to find the answer.
Is there a faster way to do this calculation? Is there a simple formula that can produce an answer?
What you are looking for are integer solutions to a special case of the general quadratic Diophantine equation1
Ax^2 + Bxy + Cy^2 + Dx + Ey + F = 0
where you have
ax^2 + bx + c = y^2
so that A = a, B = 0, C = -1, D = b, E = 0, F = c where a, b, c are known integers and you are looking for unknown x and y that satisfy this equation. Once you recognize this, solutions to this general problem are in abundance. Mathematica can do it (use Reduce[eqn && Element[x|y, Integers], x, y]) and you can even find one implementation here including source code and an explanation of the method of solution.
1: You might recognize this as a conic section. It is, and people have been studying them for thousands of years. As such, our understanding of them is very deep and your problem is actually quite famous. The study of them is an immensely deep and still active area of mathematics.
The problem:
N points are given on a 2-dimensional plane. What is the maximum number of points on the same straight line?
The problem has O(N2) solution: go through each point and find the number of points which have the same dx / dy with relation to the current point. Store dx / dy relations in a hash map for efficiency.
Is there a better solution to this problem than O(N2)?
There is likely no solution to this problem that is significantly better than O(n^2) in a standard model of computation.
The problem of finding three collinear points reduces to the problem of finding the line that goes through the most points, and finding three collinear points is 3SUM-hard, meaning that solving it in less than O(n^2) time would be a major theoretical result.
See the previous question on finding three collinear points.
For your reference (using the known proof), suppose we want to answer a 3SUM problem such as finding x, y, z in list X such that x + y + z = 0. If we had a fast algorithm for the collinear point problem, we could use that algorithm to solve the 3SUM problem as follows.
For each x in X, create the point (x, x^3) (for now we assume the elements of X are distinct). Next, check whether there exists three collinear points from among the created points.
To see that this works, note that if x + y + z = 0 then the slope of the line from x to y is
(y^3 - x^3) / (y - x) = y^2 + yx + x^2
and the slope of the line from x to z is
(z^3 - x^3) / (z - x) = z^2 + zx + x^2 = (-(x + y))^2 - (x + y)x + x^2
= x^2 + 2xy + y^2 - x^2 - xy + x^2 = y^2 + yx + x^2
Conversely, if the slope from x to y equals the slope from x to z then
y^2 + yx + x^2 = z^2 + zx + x^2,
which implies that
(y - z) (x + y + z) = 0,
so either y = z or z = -x - y as suffices to prove that the reduction is valid.
If there are duplicates in X, you first check whether x + 2y = 0 for any x and duplicate element y (in linear time using hashing or O(n lg n) time using sorting), and then remove the duplicates before reducing to the collinear point-finding problem.
If you limit the problem to lines passing through the origin, you can convert the points to polar coordinates (angle, distance from origin) and sort them by angle. All points with the same angle lie on the same line. O(n logn)
I don't think there is a faster solution in the general case.
The Hough Transform can give you an approximate solution. It is approximate because the binning technique has a limited resolution in parameter space, so the maximum bin will give you some limited range of possible lines.
Again an O(n^2) solution with pseudo code. Idea is create a hash table with line itself as the key. Line is defined by slope between the two points, point where line cuts x-axis and point where line cuts y-axis.
Solution assumes languages like Java, C# where equals method and hashcode methods of the object are used for hashing function.
Create an Object (call SlopeObject) with 3 fields
Slope // Can be Infinity
Point of intercept with x-axis -- poix // Will be (Infinity, some y value) or (x value, 0)
Count
poix will be a point (x, y) pair. If line crosses x-axis the poix will (some number, 0). If line is parallel to x axis then poix = (Infinity, some number) where y value is where line crosses y axis.
Override equals method where 2 objects are equal if Slope and poix are equal.
Hashcode is overridden with a function which provides hashcode based on combination of values of Slope and poix. Some pseudo code below
Hashmap map;
foreach(point in the array a) {
foeach(every other point b) {
slope = calculateSlope(a, b);
poix = calculateXInterception(a, b);
SlopeObject so = new SlopeObject(slope, poix, 1); // Slope, poix and intial count 1.
SlopeObject inMapSlopeObj = map.get(so);
if(inMapSlopeObj == null) {
inMapSlopeObj.put(so);
} else {
inMapSlopeObj.setCount(inMapSlopeObj.getCount() + 1);
}
}
}
SlopeObject maxCounted = getObjectWithMaxCount(map);
print("line is through " + maxCounted.poix + " with slope " + maxCounted.slope);
Move to the dual plane using the point-line duality transform for p=(a,b) p*:y=a*x + b.
Now using a line sweep algorithm find all intersection points in NlogN time.
(If you have points which are one above the other just rotate the points to some small angle).
The intersection points corresponds in the dual plane to lines in the primer plane.
Whoever said that since 3SUM have a reduction to this problem and thus the complexity is O(n^2). Please note that the complexity of 3SUM is less than that.
Please check https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3SUM and also read
https://tmc.web.engr.illinois.edu/reduce3sum_sosa.pdf
As already mentioned, there probably isn't a way to solve the general case of this problem better than O(n^2). However, if you assume a large number of points lie on the same line (say the probability that a random point in the set of points lie on the line with the maximum number of points is p) and don't need an exact algorithm, a randomized algorithm is more efficient.
maxPoints = 0
Repeat for k iterations:
1. Pick 2 random, distinct points uniformly at random
2. maxPoints = max(maxPoints, number of points that lies on the
line defined by the 2 points chosen in step 1)
Note that in the first step, if you picked 2 points which lies on the line with the maximum number of points, you'll get the optimal solution. Assuming n is very large (i.e. we can treat the probability of finding 2 desirable points as sampling with replacement), the probability of this happening is p^2. Therefore the probability of finding a suboptimal solution after k iterations is (1 - p^2)^k.
Suppose you can tolerate a false negative rate rate = err. Then this algorithm runs in O(nk) = O(n * log(err) / log(1 - p^2)). If both n and p are large enough, this is significantly more efficient than O(n^2). (i.e. Supposed n = 1,000,000 and you know there are at least 10,000 points that lie on the same line. Then n^2 would required on the magnitude of 10^12 operations, while randomized algorithm would require on the magnitude of 10^9 operations to get a error rate of less than 5*10^-5.)
It is unlikely for a $o(n^2)$ algorithm to exist, since the problem (of even checking if 3 points in R^2 are collinear) is 3Sum-hard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3SUM)
This is not a solution better than O(n^2), but you can do the following,
For each point convert first convert it as if it where in the (0,0) coordinate, and then do the equivalent translation for all the other points by moving them the same x,y distance you needed to move the original choosen point.
2.Translate this new set of translated points to the angle with respect to the new (0,0).
3.Keep stored the maximum number (MSN) of points that are in each angle.
4.Choose the maximum stored number (MSN), and that will be the solution