I am trying to write some codes to find the global maximum of an equation, e.g. f = -x**4.
Here is what I have got at the moment.
import sympy
x = sympy.symbols('x')
f = -x**4
df = sympy.diff(f,x)
ans = sympy.solve(df,x)
Then I am stuck. How should I substitute ans back into f, and how would I know if that would be the maximum, but not the minimum or a saddle point?
If you are just looking for the global maximum and nothing else, then there is already a function for that. See the following:
from sympy import *
x = symbols('x')
f = -x**4
print(maximum(f, x)) # 0
If you want more information such as the x value that gives that max or maybe local maxima, you'll have to do more manual work. In the following, I find the critical values as you have done above and then I show the values as those critical points.
diff_f = diff(f, x)
critical_points = solve(diff_f, x)
print(critical_points) # x values
for point in critical_points:
print(f.subs(x, point)) # f(x) values
This can be extended to include the second derivative test as follows:
d_f = diff(f, x)
dd_f = diff(f, x, 2)
critical_points = solve(d_f, x)
for point in critical_points:
if dd_f.subs(x, point) < 0:
print(f"Local maximum at x={point} with f({point})={f.subs(x, point)}")
elif dd_f.subs(x, point) > 0:
print(f"Local minimum at x={point} with f({point})={f.subs(x, point)}")
else:
print(f"Inconclusive at x={point} with f({point})={f.subs(x, point)}")
To find the global max, you would need to take all your critical points and evaluate the function at those points. Then pick the max from those.
outputs = [f.subs(x, point) for point in critical_points]
optimal_x = [point for point in critical_points if f.subs(x, point) == max(outputs)]
print(f"The values x={optimal_x} all produce a global max at f(x)={max(outputs)}")
The above should work for most elementary functions. Apologies for the inconsistent naming of variables.
If you are struggling with simple things like substitution, I suggest going through the docs for an hour or two.
Related
Im trying to solve some inequations containing absolute values and I want to use sympy to make my life a bit easier.
There are some conditions for the given variable to be followed, for example:
Let x be element of [-1, 0). Find the zero point of `f(x) = |-2.5x^3-3x^2-0.5x|`
where |...| indicates the absolute value.
I've tried different things like:
import sympy as sp
x = sp.Symbol('x', real=True)
i = sp.Interval.Ropen(-1, 0)
f = sp.Abs(-2.5*x**3 - 3*x**2 - 0.5*x)
print(sp.imageset(x, f, i))
Apparently the imageset function has some problems with absolute values. Also I don't know if imageset is the right function at all.
Is there a way like:
import sympy as sp
i = sp.Interval.Ropen(-1, 0)
x = sp.Symbol('x', real=True, element_of=i)
f = sp.Abs(-2.5*x**3 - 3*x**2 - 0.5*x)
print(sp.solve(f))
to print a set of solutions??
If you are trying to get positive or negative solutions, give that assumption to your variable and use solve:
>>> x = Symbol('x', negative=True)
>>> solve(x**2 - 1)
[-1]
If you really want to specify a domain/interval that is not just positive or negative, then pass that interval to solveset:
>>> solveset((x-3)**2-1,x)
{2, 4}
>>> solveset((x-3)**2-1,x,Interval(1,3))
{2}
I want to implement Karatsuba multiplication algorithm in python.But it is not working completely.
The code is not working for the values of x or y greater than 999.For inputs below 1000,the program is showing correct result.It is also showing correct results on base cases.
#Karatsuba method of multiplication.
f = int(input()) #Inputs
e = int(input())
def prod(x,y):
r = str(x)
t = str(y)
lx = len(r) #Calculation of Lengths
ly = len(t)
#Base Case
if(lx == 1 or ly == 1):
return x*y
#Other Case
else:
o = lx//2
p = ly//2
a = x//(10*o) #Calculation of a,b,c and d.
b = x-(a*10*o) #The Calculation is done by
c = y//(10*p) #calculating the length of x and y
d = y-(c*10*p) #and then dividing it by half.
#Then we just remove the half of the digits of the no.
return (10**o)*(10**p)*prod(a,c)+(10**o)*prod(a,d)+(10**p)*prod(b,c)+prod(b,d)
print(prod(f,e))
I think there are some bugs in the calculation of a,b,c and d.
a = x//(10**o)
b = x-(a*10**o)
c = y//(10**p)
d = y-(c*10**p)
You meant 10 to the power of, but wrote 10 multiplied with.
You should train to find those kinds of bugs yourself. There are multiple ways to do that:
Do the algorithm manually on paper for specific inputs, then step through your code and see if it matches
Reduce the code down to sub-portions and see if their expected value matches the produced value. In your case, check for every call of prod() what the expected output would be and what it produced, to find minimal input values that produce erroneous results.
Step through the code with the debugger. Before every line, think about what the result should be and then see if the line produces that result.
Some background...
I am currently building a macro that will estimate the cost of an injection molding tool. These tools have cavities which are filled with plastic. The number of cavities a tool has is the number of parts that will be formed.
So far my program will determine the minimum number of cavities a tool can have based on customer demand. This number is always even. The tool should have an even number of cavities. Given the bounding length and width of a cavity, and setting a limit to how much space the cavities can occupy within the tool, I need my program to calculate the combination of number of cavities along the length and width whose difference is minimized and whose product is equal to the total number of minimum cavities the tool should have.
I am programming my macro is SolidWorks VBA. I first constructed this problem in Excel and used the solver tool. But, I am unable to find a way to reference the Excel Solver Tool in SolidWorks to automate this optimization problem. I am hoping to find a clever set of equations that can solve this specific problem for me. But if someone else has a better idea of what to use, that would be awesome.
Rephrasing in an optimization format...
Variables
x = number of cavities along width of tool
y = number of cavities along length of tool
z = suggested number of total cavities
Objective Function
Minimize x - y
Such that
x * y = z
x >= 1
y >= 1
x <= y
x is an integer
y is an integer
Example
My macro says that in order to meet demand, our tool needs to have at least 48 cavities. Find the number of cavities along the length and width of the tool such that the difference is minimized and the product is equal to 48. Ideally in this case the macro would return x = 6 and y = 8.
Thanks!
Just to clarify, in the question did you actually mean to Min y-x rather than Min x-y? Otherwise there is a naïve solution taking x = 1 and y = z. Min x - y = 1-z.
I don't program in VBA but here is the idea.
Since x and y are positive integers and there product is z, with x <= y. You can essentially start with x = floor(sqrt(z)) and decrement until x = 1.
For each x, check if there exists an integer y such that x * y = z. If there is, break the loop and that's the pair you are looking for. Otherwise continue until x = 1
If you need any pseudo code so you can translate it into VBA. Here it is
int x, y;
for (x = floor(sqrt(z)); x >= 1; --x)
{
y = z / x;
if (x * y == z)
break;
}
I think you can just test out a few examples. No fancy algorithm is needed.
If you relax the condition to be 2 numbers, x and y, whose product is z and with a minimum difference, then the answer is SQRT(z).
That is not an integer that meets your needs (in general). However, you can then try integers around the square root to see if they divide z. The first one you hit (i.e. minimum difference from SQRT(z)) should have the minimum difference.
If you relax the condition to be |z - x * y| is minimized, then I would recommend testing the numbers around sqrt(z). You need to check two cases -- the floor and ceiling of the square root (and the appropriate other number).
Just in case someone is needs something similar to this in the future, but can't figure out the pseudo-code I went ahead wrote it up. I wasn't sure how to output it as two values so I just threw them together as a string for the user to see.
Option Explicit
Function Factors(ByVal Test As Long) As String
Dim Val As Long
Dim i As Long
Val = Test
i = Int(Sqr(Val))
While Val / i >= 2
If Int(Val / i) * i = Val Then
Factors = i & " & " & Val / i
Exit Function
End If
i = i - 1
Wend
End Function
I must solve the Euler Bernoulli differential beam equation which is:
w’’’’(x) = q(x)
and boundary conditions:
w(0) = w(l) = 0
and
w′′(0) = w′′(l) = 0
The beam is as shown on the picture below:
beam
The continious force q is 2N/mm.
I have to use shooting method and scipy.integrate.odeint() func.
I can't even manage to start as i do not understand how to write the differential equation as a system of equation
Can someone who understands solving of differential equations with boundary conditions in python please help!
Thanks :)
The shooting method
To solve the fourth order ODE BVP with scipy.integrate.odeint() using the shooting method you need to:
1.) Separate the 4th order ODE into 4 first order ODEs by substituting:
u = w
u1 = u' = w' # 1
u2 = u1' = w'' # 2
u3 = u2' = w''' # 3
u4 = u3' = w'''' = q # 4
2.) Create a function to carry out the derivation logic and connect that function to the integrate.odeint() like this:
function calc(u, x , q)
{
return [u[1], u[2], u[3] , q]
}
w = integrate.odeint(calc, [w(0), guess, w''(0), guess], xList, args=(q,))
Explanation:
We are sending the boundary value conditions to odeint() for x=0 ([w(0), w'(0) ,w''(0), w'''(0)]) which calls the function calc which returns the derivatives to be added to the current state of w. Note that we are guessing the initial boundary conditions for w'(0) and w'''(0) while entering the known w(0)=0 and w''(0)=0.
Addition of derivatives to the current state of w occurs like this:
# the current w(x) value is the previous value plus the current change of w in dx.
w(x) = w(x-dx) + dw/dx
# others are calculated the same
dw(x)/dx = dw(x-dx)/dx + d^2w(x)/dx^2
# etc.
This is why we are returning values [u[1], u[2], u[3] , q] instead of [u[0], u[1], u[2] , u[3]] from the calc function, because u[1] is the first derivative so we add it to w, etc.
3.) Now we are able to set up our shooting method. We will be sending different initial boundary values for w'(0) and w'''(0) to odeint() and then check the end result of the returned w(x) profile to determine how close w(L) and w''(L) got to 0 (the known boundary conditions).
The program for the shooting method:
# a function to return the derivatives of w
def returnDerivatives(u, x, q):
return [u[1], u[2], u[3], q]
# a shooting funtion which takes in two variables and returns a w(x) profile for x=[0,L]
def shoot(u2, u4):
# the number of x points to calculate integration -> determines the size of dx
# bigger number means more x's -> better precision -> longer execution time
xSteps = 1001
# length of the beam
L= 1.0 # 1m
xSpace = np.linspace(0, L, xSteps)
q = 0.02 # constant [N/m]
# integrate and return the profile of w(x) and it's derivatives, from x=0 to x=L
return odeint(returnDerivatives, [ 0, u2, 0, u4] , xSpace, args=(q,))
# the tolerance for our results.
tolerance = 0.01
# how many numbers to consider for u2 and u4 (the guess boundary conditions)
u2_u4_maxNumbers = 1327 # bigger number, better precision, slower program
# you can also divide into separate variables like u2_maxNum and u4_maxNum
# these are already tested numbers (the best results are somewhere in here)
u2Numbers = np.linspace(-0.1, 0.1, u2_u4_maxNumbers)
# the same as above
u4Numbers = np.linspace(-0.5, 0.5, u2_u4_maxNumbers)
# result list for extracted values of each w(x) profile => [u2Best, u4Best, w(L), w''(L)]
# which will help us determine if the w(x) profile is inside tolerance
resultList = []
# result list for each U (or w(x) profile) => [w(x), w'(x), w''(x), w'''(x)]
resultW = []
# start generating numbers for u2 and u4 and send them to odeint()
for u2 in u2Numbers:
for u4 in u4Numbers:
U = []
U = shoot(u2,u4)
# get only the last row of the profile to determine if it passes tolerance check
result = U[len(U)-1]
# only check w(L) == 0 and w''(L) == 0, as those are the known boundary cond.
if (abs(result[0]) < tolerance) and (abs(result[2]) < tolerance):
# if the result passed the tolerance check, extract some values from the
# last row of the w(x) profile which we will need later for comaprisons
resultList.append([u2, u4, result[0], result[2]])
# add the w(x) profile to the list of profiles that passed the tolerance
# Note: the order of resultList is the same as the order of resultW
resultW.append(U)
# go through the resultList (list of extracted values from last row of each w(x) profile)
for i in range(len(resultList)):
x = resultList[i]
# both boundary conditions are 0 for both w(L) and w''(L) so we will simply add
# the two absolute values to determine how much the sum differs from 0
y = abs(x[2]) + abs(x[3])
# if we've just started set the least difference to the current
if i == 0:
minNum = y # remember the smallest difference to 0
index = 0 # remember index of best profile
elif y < minNum:
# current sum of absolute values is smaller
minNum = y
index = i
# print out the integral for w(x) over the beam
sum = 0
for i in resultW[index]:
sum = sum + i[0]
print("The integral of w(x) over the beam is:")
print(sum/1001) # sum/xSteps
This outputs:
The integral of w(x) over the beam is:
0.000135085272117
To print out the best profile for w(x) that we found:
print(resultW[index])
which outputs something like:
# w(x) w'(x) w''(x) w'''(x)
[[ 0.00000000e+00 7.54147813e-04 0.00000000e+00 -9.80392157e-03]
[ 7.54144825e-07 7.54142917e-04 -9.79392157e-06 -9.78392157e-03]
[ 1.50828005e-06 7.54128237e-04 -1.95678431e-05 -9.76392157e-03]
...,
[ -4.48774290e-05 -8.14851572e-04 1.75726275e-04 1.01560784e-02]
[ -4.56921910e-05 -8.14670764e-04 1.85892353e-04 1.01760784e-02]
[ -4.65067671e-05 -8.14479780e-04 1.96078431e-04 1.01960784e-02]]
To double check the results from above we will also solve the ODE using the numerical method.
The numerical method
To solve the problem using the numerical method we first need to solve the differential equations. We will get four constants which we need to find with the help of the boundary conditions. The boundary conditions will be used to form a system of equations to help find the necessary constants.
For example:
w’’’’(x) = q(x);
means that we have this:
d^4(w(x))/dx^4 = q(x)
Since q(x) is constant after integrating we have:
d^3(w(x))/dx^3 = q(x)*x + C
After integrating again:
d^2(w(x))/dx^2 = q(x)*0.5*x^2 + C*x + D
After another integration:
dw(x)/dx = q(x)/6*x^3 + C*0.5*x^2 + D*x + E
And finally the last integration yields:
w(x) = q(x)/24*x^4 + C/6*x^3 + D*0.5*x^2 + E*x + F
Then we take a look at the boundary conditions (now we have expressions from above for w''(x) and w(x)) with which we make a system of equations to solve the constants.
w''(0) => 0 = q(x)*0.5*0^2 + C*0 + D
w''(L) => 0 = q(x)*0.5*L^2 + C*L + D
This gives us the constants:
D = 0 # from the first equation
C = - 0.01 * L # from the second (after inserting D=0)
After repeating the same for w(0)=0 and w(L)=0 we obtain:
F = 0 # from first
E = 0.01/12.0 * L^3 # from second
Now, after we have solved the equation and found all of the integration constants we can make the program for the numerical method.
The program for the numerical method
We will make a FOR loop to go through the entire beam for every dx at a time and sum up (integrate) w(x).
L = 1.0 # in meters
step = 1001.0 # how many steps to take (dx)
q = 0.02 # constant [N/m]
integralOfW = 0.0; # instead of w(0) enter the boundary condition value for w(0)
result = []
for i in range(int(L*step)):
x= i/step
w = (q/24.0*pow(x,4) - 0.02/12.0*pow(x,3) + 0.01/12*pow(L,3)*x)/step # current w fragment
# add up fragments of w for integral calculation
integralOfW += w
# add current value of w(x) to result list for plotting
result.append(w*step);
print("The integral of w(x) over the beam is:")
print(integralOfW)
which outputs:
The integral of w(x) over the beam is:
0.00016666652805511192
Now to compare the two methods
Result comparison between the shooting method and the numerical method
The integral of w(x) over the beam:
Shooting method -> 0.000135085272117
Numerical method -> 0.00016666652805511192
That's a pretty good match, now lets see check the plots:
From the plots it's even more obvious that we have a good match and that the results of the shooting method are correct.
To get even better results for the shooting method increase xSteps and u2_u4_maxNumbers to bigger numbers and you can also narrow down the u2Numbers and u4Numbers to the same set size but a smaller interval (around the best results from previous program runs). Keep in mind that setting xSteps and u2_u4_maxNumbers too high will cause your program to run for a very long time.
You need to transform the ODE into a first order system, setting u0=w one possible and usually used system is
u0'=u1,
u1'=u2,
u2'=u3,
u3'=q(x)
This can be implemented as
def ODEfunc(u,x): return [ u[1], u[2], u[3], q(x) ]
Then make a function that shoots with experimental initial conditions and returns the components of the second boundary condition
def shoot(u01, u03): return odeint(ODEfunc, [0, u01, 0, u03], [0, l])[-1,[0,2]]
Now you have a function of two variables with two components and you need to solve this 2x2 system with the usual methods. As the system is linear, the shooting function is linear as well and you only need to find the coefficients and solve the resulting linear system.
The code below generates two random integers within range specified by argv, tests if the integers match and starts again. At the end it prints some stats about the process.
I've noticed though that increasing the value of argv reduces the percentage of tested possibilities exponentially.
This seems counter intuitive to me so my question is, is this an error in the code or are the numbers real and if so then what am I not thinking about?
#!/usr/bin/python3
import sys
import random
x = int(sys.argv[1])
a = random.randint(0,x)
b = random.randint(0,x)
steps = 1
combos = x**2
while a != b:
a = random.randint(0,x)
b = random.randint(0,x)
steps += 1
percent = (steps / combos) * 100
print()
print()
print('[{} ! {}]'.format(a,b), end=' ')
print('equality!'.upper())
print('steps'.upper(), steps)
print('possble combinations = {}'.format(combos))
print('explored {}% possibilitys'.format(percent))
Thanks
EDIT
For example:
./runscrypt.py 100000
will returm me something like:
[65697 ! 65697] EQUALITY!
STEPS 115867
possble combinations = 10000000000
explored 0.00115867% possibilitys
"explored 0.00115867% possibilitys" <-- This number is too low?
This experiment is really a geometric distribution.
Ie.
Let Y be the random variable of the number of iterations before a match is seen. Then Y is geometrically distributed with parameter 1/x (the probability of generating two matching integers).
The expected value, E[Y] = 1/p where p is the mentioned probability (the proof of this can be found in the link above). So in your case the expected number of iterations is 1/(1/x) = x.
The number of combinations is x^2.
So the expected percentage of explored possibilities is really x/(x^2) = 1/x.
As x approaches infinity, this number approaches 0.
In the case of x=100000, the expected percentage of explored possibilities = 1/100000 = 0.001% which is very close to your numerical result.