I'm trying to apply the method for baselinining vibrational spectra, which is announced as an improvement over asymmetric and iterative re-weighted least-squares algorithms in the 2015 paper (doi:10.1039/c4an01061b), where the following matlab code was provided:
function z = baseline(y, lambda, ratio)
% Estimate baseline with arPLS in Matlab
N = length(y);
D = diff(speye(N), 2);
H = lambda*D'*D;
w = ones(N, 1);
while true
W = spdiags(w, 0, N, N);
% Cholesky decomposition
C = chol(W + H);
z = C \ (C' \ (w.*y) );
d = y - z;
% make d-, and get w^t with m and s
dn = d(d<0);
m = mean(d);
s = std(d);
wt = 1./ (1 + exp( 2* (d-(2*s-m))/s ) );
% check exit condition and backup
if norm(w-wt)/norm(w) < ratio, break; end
end
that I rewrote into python:
def baseline_arPLS(y, lam, ratio):
# Estimate baseline with arPLS
N = len(y)
k = [numpy.ones(N), -2*numpy.ones(N-1), numpy.ones(N-2)]
offset = [0, 1, 2]
D = diags(k, offset).toarray()
H = lam * numpy.matmul(D.T, D)
w_ = numpy.ones(N)
while True:
W = spdiags(w_, 0, N, N, format='csr')
# Cholesky decomposition
C = cholesky(W + H)
z_ = spsolve(C.T, w_ * y)
z = spsolve(C, z_)
d = y - z
# make d- and get w^t with m and s
dn = d[d<0]
m = numpy.mean(dn)
s = numpy.std(dn)
wt = 1. / (1 + numpy.exp(2 * (d - (2*s-m)) / s))
# check exit condition and backup
norm_wt, norm_w = norm(w_-wt), norm(w_)
if (norm_wt / norm_w) < ratio:
break
w_ = wt
return(z)
Except for the input vector y the method requires parameters lam and ratio and it runs ok for values lam<1.e+07 and ratio>1.e-01, but outputs poor results. When values are changed outside this range, for example lam=1e+07, ratio=1e-02 the CPU starts heating up and job never finishes (I interrupted it after 1min). Also in both cases the following warning shows up:
/usr/local/lib/python3.9/site-packages/scipy/sparse/linalg/dsolve/linsolve.py: 144: SparseEfficencyWarning: spsolve requires A to be CSC or CSR matrix format warn('spsolve requires A to be CSC or CSR format',
although I added the recommended format='csr' option to the spdiags call.
And here's some synthetic data (similar to one in the paper) for testing purposes. The noise was added along with a 3rd degree polynomial baseline The method works well for parameters bl_1 and fails to converge for bl_2:
import numpy
from matplotlib import pyplot
from scipy.sparse import spdiags, diags, identity
from scipy.sparse.linalg import spsolve
from numpy.linalg import cholesky, norm
import sys
x = numpy.arange(0, 1000)
noise = numpy.random.uniform(low=0, high = 10, size=len(x))
poly_3rd_degree = numpy.poly1d([1.2e-06, -1.23e-03, .36, -4.e-04])
poly_baseline = poly_3rd_degree(x)
y = 100 * numpy.exp(-((x-300)/15)**2)+\
200 * numpy.exp(-((x-750)/30)**2)+ \
100 * numpy.exp(-((x-800)/15)**2) + noise + poly_baseline
bl_1 = baseline_arPLS(y, 1e+07, 1e-01)
bl_2 = baseline_arPLS(y, 1e+07, 1e-02)
pyplot.figure(1)
pyplot.plot(x, y, 'C0')
pyplot.plot(x, poly_baseline, 'C1')
pyplot.plot(x, bl_1, 'k')
pyplot.show()
sys.exit(0)
All this is telling me that I'm doing something very non-optimal in my python implementation. Since I'm not knowledgeable enough about the intricacies of scipy computations I'm kindly asking for suggestions on how to achieve convergence in this calculations.
(I encountered an issue in running the "straight" matlab version of the code because the line D = diff(speye(N), 2); truncates the last two rows of the matrix, creating dimension mismatch later in the function. Following the description of matrix D's appearance I substituted this line by directly creating a tridiagonal matrix using the diags function.)
Guided by the comment #hpaulj made, and suspecting that the loop exit wasn't coded properly, I re-visited the paper and found out that the authors actually implemented an exit condition that was not featured in their matlab script. Changing the while loop condition provides an exit for any set of parameters; my understanding is that algorithm is not guaranteed to converge in all cases, which is why this condition is necessary but was omitted by error. Here's the edited version of my python code:
def baseline_arPLS(y, lam, ratio):
# Estimate baseline with arPLS
N = len(y)
k = [numpy.ones(N), -2*numpy.ones(N-1), numpy.ones(N-2)]
offset = [0, 1, 2]
D = diags(k, offset).toarray()
H = lam * numpy.matmul(D.T, D)
w_ = numpy.ones(N)
i = 0
N_iterations = 100
while i < N_iterations:
W = spdiags(w_, 0, N, N, format='csr')
# Cholesky decomposition
C = cholesky(W + H)
z_ = spsolve(C.T, w_ * y)
z = spsolve(C, z_)
d = y - z
# make d- and get w^t with m and s
dn = d[d<0]
m = numpy.mean(dn)
s = numpy.std(dn)
wt = 1. / (1 + numpy.exp(2 * (d - (2*s-m)) / s))
# check exit condition and backup
norm_wt, norm_w = norm(w_-wt), norm(w_)
if (norm_wt / norm_w) < ratio:
break
w_ = wt
i += 1
return(z)
Related
I would like to solve the above formulation in Scipy and solve it using milp(). For a given graph (V, E), f_ij and x_ij are the decision variables. f_ij is the flow from i to j (it can be continuous). x_ij is the number of vehicles from i to j. p is the price. X is the available number vehicles in a region. c is the capacity.
I have difficulty in translating the formulation to Scipy milp code. I would appreciate it if anyone could give me some pointers.
What I have done:
The code for equation (1):
f_obj = [p[i] for i in Edge]
x_obj = [0]*len(Edge)
obj = f_obj + v_obj
Integrality:
f_cont = [0 for i in Edge] # continous
x_int = [1]*len(Edge) # integer
integrality = f_cont + x_int
Equation (2):
def constraints(self):
b = []
A = []
const = [0]*len(Edge) # for f_ij
for i in v: # for x_ij
for e in Edge:
if e[0] == i:
const.append(1)
else:
const.append(0)
A.append(const)
b.append(self.accInit[i])
const = [0]*len(Edge) # for f_ij
return A, b
Equation (4):
[(0, demand[e]) for e in Edge]
I'm going to do some wild guessing, given how much you've left open to interpretation. Let's assume that
this is a maximisation problem, since the minimisation problem is trivial
Expression (1) is actually the maximisation objective function, though you failed to write it as such
p and d are floating-point vectors
X is an integer vector
c is a floating-point scalar
the graph edges, since you haven't described them at all, do not matter for problem setup
The variable names are not well-chosen and hide what they actually contain. I demonstrate potential replacements.
import numpy as np
from numpy.random._generator import Generator
from scipy.optimize import milp, Bounds, LinearConstraint
import scipy.sparse
from numpy.random import default_rng
rand: Generator = default_rng(seed=0)
N = 20
price = rand.uniform(low=0, high=10, size=N) # p
demand = rand.uniform(low=0, high=10, size=N) # d
availability = rand.integers(low=0, high=10, size=N) # X aka. accInit
capacity = rand.uniform(low=0, high=10) # c
c = np.zeros(2*N) # f and x
c[:N] = -price # (1) f maximized with coefficients of 'p'
# x not optimized
CONTINUOUS = 0
INTEGER = 1
integrality = np.empty_like(c, dtype=int)
integrality[:N] = CONTINUOUS # f
integrality[N:] = INTEGER # x
upper = np.empty_like(c)
upper[:N] = demand # (4) f
upper[N:] = availability # (2) x
eye_N = scipy.sparse.eye(N)
A = scipy.sparse.hstack((-eye_N, capacity*eye_N)) # (3) 0 <= -f + cx
result = milp(
c=c, integrality=integrality,
bounds=Bounds(lb=np.zeros_like(c), ub=upper),
constraints=LinearConstraint(lb=np.zeros(N), A=A),
)
print(result.message)
flow = result.x[:N]
vehicles = result.x[N:].astype(int)
im trying to write a program that gives the integral approximation of e(x^2) between 0 and 1 based on this integral formula:
Formula
i've done this code so far but it keeps giving the wrong answer (Other methods gives 1.46 as an answer, this one gives 1.006).
I think that maybe there is a problem with the two for cycles that does the Riemman sum, or that there is a problem in the way i've wrote the formula. I also tried to re-write the formula in other ways but i had no success
Any kind of help is appreciated.
import math
import numpy as np
def f(x):
y = np.exp(x**2)
return y
a = float(input("¿Cual es el limite inferior? \n"))
b = float(input("¿Cual es el limite superior? \n"))
n = int(input("¿Cual es el numero de intervalos? "))
x = np.zeros([n+1])
y = np.zeros([n])
z = np.zeros([n])
h = (b-a)/n
print (h)
x[0] = a
x[n] = b
suma1 = 0
suma2 = 0
for i in np.arange(1,n):
x[i] = x[i-1] + h
suma1 = suma1 + f(x[i])
alfa = (x[i]-x[i-1])/3
for i in np.arange(0,n):
y[i] = (x[i-1]+ alfa)
suma2 = suma2 + f(y[i])
z[i] = y[i] + alfa
int3 = ((b-a)/(8*n)) * (f(x[0])+f(x[n]) + (3*(suma2+f(z[i]))) + (2*(suma1)))
print (int3)
I'm not a math major but I remember helping a friend with this rule for something about waterplane area for ships.
Here's an implementation based on Wikipedia's description of the Simpson's 3/8 rule:
# The input parameters
a, b, n = 0, 1, 10
# Divide the interval into 3*n sub-intervals
# and hence 3*n+1 endpoints
x = np.linspace(a,b,3*n+1)
y = f(x)
# The weight for each points
w = [1,3,3,1]
result = 0
for i in range(0, 3*n, 3):
# Calculate the area, 4 points at a time
result += (x[i+3] - x[i]) / 8 * (y[i:i+4] * w).sum()
# result = 1.4626525814387632
You can do it using numpy.vectorize (Based on this wikipedia post):
a, b, n = 0, 1, 10**6
h = (b-a) / n
x = np.linspace(0,n,n+1)*h + a
fv = np.vectorize(f)
(
3*h/8 * (
f(x[0]) +
3 * fv(x[np.mod(np.arange(len(x)), 3) != 0]).sum() + #skip every 3rd index
2 * fv(x[::3]).sum() + #get every 3rd index
f(x[-1])
)
)
#Output: 1.462654874404461
If you use numpy's built-in functions (which I think is always possible), performance will improve considerably:
a, b, n = 0, 1, 10**6
x = np.exp(np.square(np.linspace(0,n,n+1)*h + a))
(
3*h/8 * (
x[0] +
3 * x[np.mod(np.arange(len(x)), 3) != 0].sum()+
2 * x[::3].sum() +
x[-1]
)
)
#Output: 1.462654874404461
I have a code that works perfectly well but I wish to speed up the time it takes to converge. A snippet of the code is shown below:
def myfunction(x, i):
y = x + (min(0, target[i] - data[i, :]x))*data[i]/(norm(data[i])**2))
return y
rows, columns = data.shape
start = time.time()
iterate = 0
iterate_count = []
norm_count = []
res = 5
x_not = np.ones(columns)
norm_count.append(norm(x_not))
iterate_count.append(0)
while res > 1e-8:
for row in range(rows):
y = myfunction(x_not, row)
x_not = y
iterate += 1
iterate_count.append(iterate)
norm_count.append(norm(x_not))
res = abs(norm_count[-1] - norm_count[-2])
print('Converge at {} iterations'.format(iterate))
print('Duration: {:.4f} seconds'.format(time.time() - start))
I am relatively new in Python. I will appreciate any hint/assistance.
Ax=b is the problem we wish to solve. Here, 'A' is the 'data' and 'b' is the 'target'
Ugh! After spending a while on this I don't think it can be done the way you've set up your problem. In each iteration over the row, you modify x_not and then pass the updated result to get the solution for the next row. This kind of setup can't be vectorized easily. You can learn the thought process of vectorization from the failed attempt, so I'm including it in the answer. I'm also including a different iterative method to solve linear systems of equations. I've included a vectorized version -- where the solution is updated using matrix multiplication and vector addition, and a loopy version -- where the solution is updated using a for loop to demonstrate what you can expect to gain.
1. The failed attempt
Let's take a look at what you're doing here.
def myfunction(x, i):
y = x + (min(0, target[i] - data[i, :] # x)) * (data[i] / (norm(data[i])**2))
return y
You subtract
the dot product of (the ith row of data and x_not)
from the ith row of target,
limited at zero.
You multiply this result with the ith row of data divided my the norm of that row squared. Let's call this part2
Then you add this to the ith element of x_not
Now let's look at the shapes of the matrices.
data is (M, N).
target is (M, ).
x_not is (N, )
Instead of doing these operations rowwise, you can operate on the entire matrix!
1.1. Simplifying the dot product.
Instead of doing data[i, :] # x, you can do data # x_not and this gives an array with the ith element giving the dot product of the ith row with x_not. So now we have data # x_not with shape (M, )
Then, you can subtract this from the entire target array, so target - (data # x_not) has shape (M, ).
So far, we have
part1 = target - (data # x_not)
Next, if anything is greater than zero, set it to zero.
part1[part1 > 0] = 0
1.2. Finding rowwise norms.
Finally, you want to multiply this by the row of data, and divide by the square of the L2-norm of that row. To get the norm of each row of a matrix, you do
rownorms = np.linalg.norm(data, axis=1)
This is a (M, ) array, so we need to convert it to a (M, 1) array so we can divide each row. rownorms[:, None] does this. Then divide data by this.
part2 = data / (rownorms[:, None]**2)
1.3. Add to x_not
Finally, we're adding each row of part1 * part2 to the original x_not and returning the result
result = x_not + (part1 * part2).sum(axis=0)
Here's where we get stuck. In your approach, each call to myfunction() gives a value of part1 that depends on target[i], which was changed in the last call to myfunction().
2. Why vectorize?
Using numpy's inbuilt methods instead of looping allows it to offload the calculation to its C backend, so it runs faster. If your numpy is linked to a BLAS backend, you can extract even more speed by using your processor's SIMD registers
The conjugate gradient method is a simple iterative method to solve certain systems of equations. There are other more complex algorithms that can solve general systems well, but this should do for the purposes of our demo. Again, the purpose is not to have an iterative algorithm that will perfectly solve any linear system of equations, but to show what kind of speedup you can expect if you vectorize your code.
Given your system
data # x_not = target
Let's define some variables:
A = data.T # data
b = data.T # target
And we'll solve the system A # x = b
x = np.zeros((columns,)) # Initial guess. Can be anything
resid = b - A # x
p = resid
while (np.abs(resid) > tolerance).any():
Ap = A # p
alpha = (resid.T # resid) / (p.T # Ap)
x = x + alpha * p
resid_new = resid - alpha * Ap
beta = (resid_new.T # resid_new) / (resid.T # resid)
p = resid_new + beta * p
resid = resid_new + 0
To contrast the fully vectorized approach with one that uses iterations to update the rows of x and resid_new, let's define another implementation of the CG solver that does this.
def solve_loopy(data, target, itermax = 100, tolerance = 1e-8):
A = data.T # data
b = data.T # target
rows, columns = data.shape
x = np.zeros((columns,)) # Initial guess. Can be anything
resid = b - A # x
resid_new = b - A # x
p = resid
niter = 0
while (np.abs(resid) > tolerance).any() and niter < itermax:
Ap = A # p
alpha = (resid.T # resid) / (p.T # Ap)
for i in range(len(x)):
x[i] = x[i] + alpha * p[i]
resid_new[i] = resid[i] - alpha * Ap[i]
# resid_new = resid - alpha * A # p
beta = (resid_new.T # resid_new) / (resid.T # resid)
p = resid_new + beta * p
resid = resid_new + 0
niter += 1
return x
And our original vector method:
def solve_vect(data, target, itermax = 100, tolerance = 1e-8):
A = data.T # data
b = data.T # target
rows, columns = data.shape
x = np.zeros((columns,)) # Initial guess. Can be anything
resid = b - A # x
resid_new = b - A # x
p = resid
niter = 0
while (np.abs(resid) > tolerance).any() and niter < itermax:
Ap = A # p
alpha = (resid.T # resid) / (p.T # Ap)
x = x + alpha * p
resid_new = resid - alpha * Ap
beta = (resid_new.T # resid_new) / (resid.T # resid)
p = resid_new + beta * p
resid = resid_new + 0
niter += 1
return x
Let's solve a simple system to see if this works first:
2x1 + x2 = -5
−x1 + x2 = -2
should give a solution of [-1, -3]
data = np.array([[ 2, 1],
[-1, 1]])
target = np.array([-5, -2])
print(solve_loopy(data, target))
print(solve_vect(data, target))
Both give the correct solution [-1, -3], yay! Now on to bigger things:
data = np.random.random((100, 100))
target = np.random.random((100, ))
Let's ensure the solution is still correct:
sol1 = solve_loopy(data, target)
np.allclose(data # sol1, target)
# Output: False
sol2 = solve_vect(data, target)
np.allclose(data # sol2, target)
# Output: False
Hmm, looks like the CG method doesn't work for badly conditioned random matrices we created. Well, at least both give the same result.
np.allclose(sol1, sol2)
# Output: True
But let's not get discouraged! We don't really care if it works perfectly, the point of this is to demonstrate how amazing vectorization is. So let's time this:
import timeit
timeit.timeit('solve_loopy(data, target)', number=10, setup='from __main__ import solve_loopy, data, target')
# Output: 0.25586539999994784
timeit.timeit('solve_vect(data, target)', number=10, setup='from __main__ import solve_vect, data, target')
# Output: 0.12008900000000722
Nice! A ~2x speedup simply by avoiding a loop while updating our solution!
For larger systems, this will be even better.
for N in [10, 50, 100, 500, 1000]:
data = np.random.random((N, N))
target = np.random.random((N, ))
t_loopy = timeit.timeit('solve_loopy(data, target)', number=10, setup='from __main__ import solve_loopy, data, target')
t_vect = timeit.timeit('solve_vect(data, target)', number=10, setup='from __main__ import solve_vect, data, target')
print(N, t_loopy, t_vect, t_loopy/t_vect)
This gives us:
N t_loopy t_vect speedup
00010 0.002823 0.002099 1.345390
00050 0.051209 0.014486 3.535048
00100 0.260348 0.114601 2.271773
00500 0.980453 0.240151 4.082644
01000 1.769959 0.508197 3.482822
I am trying to implement parts of Facebook's prophet with some help from this example.
https://github.com/luke14free/pm-prophet/blob/master/pmprophet/model.py
This goes well :), but I am having some problems with the dot product I don't understand. Note that I am implementing the linear trends.
ds = pd.to_datetime(df['dagindex'], format='%d-%m-%y')
m = pm.Model()
changepoint_prior_scale = 0.05
n_changepoints = 25
changepoints = pd.date_range(
start=pd.to_datetime(ds.min()),
end=pd.to_datetime(ds.max()),
periods=n_changepoints + 2
)[1: -1]
with m:
# priors
sigma = pm.HalfCauchy('sigma', 10, testval=1)
#trend
growth = pm.Normal('growth', 0, 10)
prior_changepoints = pm.Laplace('changepoints', 0, changepoint_prior_scale, shape=len(changepoints))
y = np.zeros(len(df))
# indexes x_i for the changepoints.
s = [np.abs((ds - i).values).argmin() for i in changepoints]
g = growth
x = np.arange(len(ds))
# delta
d = prior_changepoints
regression = x * g
base_piecewise_regression = []
for i in s:
local_x = x.copy()[:-i]
local_x = np.concatenate([np.zeros(i), local_x])
base_piecewise_regression.append(local_x)
piecewise_regression = np.array(base_piecewise_regression)
# this dot product doesn't work?
piecewise_regression = pm.math.dot(theano.shared(piecewise_regression).T, d)
# If I comment out this line and use that one as dot product. It works fine
# piecewise_regression = (piecewise_regression.T * d[None, :]).sum(axis=-1)
regression += piecewise_regression
y += regression
obs = pm.Normal('y',
mu=(y - df.gebruikers.mean()) / df.gebruikers.std(),
sd=sigma,
observed=(df.gebruikers - df.gebruikers.mean()) / df.gebruikers.std())
start = pm.find_MAP(maxeval=10000)
trace = pm.sample(500, step=pm.NUTS(), start=start)
If I run the snippet above with
piecewise_regression = (piecewise_regression.T * d[None, :]).sum(axis=-1)
the model works as expected. However I cannot get it to work with a dot product. The NUTS sampler doesn't sample at all.
piecewise_regression = pm.math.dot(theano.shared(piecewise_regression).T, d)
EDIT
Ive got a minimal working example
The problem still occurs with theano.shared. I’ve got a minimal working example:
np.random.seed(5)
n_changepoints = 10
t = np.arange(1000)
s = np.sort(np.random.choice(t, size=n_changepoints, replace=False))
a = (t[:, None] > s) * 1
real_delta = np.random.normal(size=n_changepoints)
y = np.dot(a, real_delta) * t
with pm.Model():
sigma = pm.HalfCauchy('sigma', 10, testval=1)
delta = pm.Laplace('delta', 0, 0.05, shape=n_changepoints)
g = tt.dot(a, delta) * t
obs = pm.Normal('obs',
mu=(g - y.mean()) / y.std(),
sd=sigma,
observed=(y - y.mean()) / y.std())
trace = pm.sample(500)
It seems to have something to do with the size of matrix a. NUTS doesnt’t sample if I start with
t = np.arange(1000)
however the example above does sample when I reduce the size of t to:
t = np.arange(100)
I have the following code that solves simultaneous linear equations by starting with the first equation and finding y when x=0, then putting that y into the second equation and finding x, then putting that x back into the first equation etc...
Obviously, this has the potential to reach infinity, so if it reaches +-inf then it swaps the order of the equations so the spiral/ladder goes the other way.
This seems to work, tho I'm not such a good mathematician that I can prove it will always work beyond a hunch, and of course some lines never meet (I know how to use matrices and linear algebra to check straight off whether they will never meet, but I'm not so interested in that atm).
Is there a better way to 'spiral' in on the answer? I'm not interested in using math functions or numpy for the whole solution - I want to be able to code the solution. I don't mind using libraries to improve the performance, for instance using some sort of statistical method.
This may be a very naive question from either a coding or maths point of view, but if so I'd like to know why!
My code is as follows:
# A python program to solve 2d simultaneous equations
# by iterating over coefficients in spirals
import numpy as np
def Input(coeff_or_constant, var, lower, upper):
val = int(input("Let the {} {} be a number between {} and {}: ".format(coeff_or_constant, var, lower, upper)))
if val >= lower and val <= upper :
return val
else:
print("Invalid input")
exit(0)
def Equation(equation_array):
a = Input("coefficient", "a", 0, 10)
b = Input("coefficient", "b", 0, 10)
c = Input("constant", "c", 0, 10)
equation_list = [a, b, c]
equation_array.append(equation_list)
return equation_array
def Stringify_Equations(equation_array):
A = str(equation_array[0][0])
B = str(equation_array[0][1])
C = str(equation_array[0][2])
D = str(equation_array[1][0])
E = str(equation_array[1][1])
F = str(equation_array[1][2])
eq1 = str(A + "y = " + B + "x + " + C)
eq2 = str(D + "y = " + E + "x + " + F)
print(eq1)
print(eq2)
def Spiral(equation_array):
a = equation_array[0][0]
b = equation_array[0][1]
c = equation_array[0][2]
d = equation_array[1][0]
e = equation_array[1][1]
f = equation_array[1][2]
# start at y when x = 0
x = 0
infinity_flag = False
count = 0
coords = []
coords.append([0, 0])
coords.append([1, 1])
# solve equation 2 for x when y = START
while not (coords[0][0] == coords[1][0]):
try:
y = ( ( b * x ) + c ) / a
except:
y = 0
print(y)
try:
x = ( ( d * y ) - f ) / e
except:
x = 0
if x >= 100000 or x <= -100000:
count = count + 1
if count >= 100000:
print("It\'s looking like these linear equations don\'t intersect!")
break
print(x)
new_coords = [x, y]
coords.append(new_coords)
coords.pop(0)
if not ((x == float("inf") or x == float("-inf")) and (y == float("inf") or y == float("-inf"))):
pass
else:
infinity_flag if False else True
if infinity_flag == False:
# if the spiral is divergent this switches the equations around so it converges
# the infinity_flag is to check if both spirals returned infinity meaning the lines do not intersect
# I think this would mostly work for linear equations, but for other kinds of equations it might not
x = 0
a = equation_array[1][0]
b = equation_array[1][1]
c = equation_array[1][2]
d = equation_array[0][0]
e = equation_array[0][1]
f = equation_array[0][2]
infinity_flag = False
else:
print("These linear equations do not intersect")
break
y = round(y, 3)
x = round(x, 3)
print(x, y)
equation_array = []
print("Specify coefficients a and b, and a constant c for equation 1")
equations = Equation(equation_array)
print("Specify coefficients a and b, and a constant c for equation 1")
equations = Equation(equation_array)
print(equation_array)
Stringify_Equations(equation_array)
Spiral(equation_array)