Just for practice, I am using nested lists (for exaple, [[1, 0], [0, 1]] is the 2*2 identity matrix) as matrices. I am trying to compute determinant by reducing it to an upper triangular matrix and then by multiplying its diagonal entries. To do this:
"""adds two matrices"""
def add(A, B):
S = []
for i in range(len(A)):
row = []
for j in range(len(A[0])):
row.append(A[i][j] + B[i][j])
S.append(row)
return S
"""scalar multiplication of matrix with n"""
def scale(n, A):
return [[(n)*x for x in row] for row in A]
def detr(M):
Mi = M
#the loops below are supossed to convert Mi
#to upper triangular form:
for i in range(len(Mi)):
for j in range(len(Mi)):
if j>i:
k = -(Mi[j][i])/(Mi[i][i])
Mi[j] = add( scale(k, [Mi[i]]), [Mi[j]] )[0]
#multiplies diagonal entries of Mi:
k = 1
for i in range(len(Mi)):
k = k*Mi[i][i]
return k
Here, you can see that I have set M (argument) equal to Mi and and then operated on Mi to take it to upper triangular form. So, M is supposed to stay unmodified. But after using detr(A), print(A) prints the upper triangular matrix. I tried:
setting X = M, then Mi = X
defining kill(M): return M and then setting Mi = kill(M)
But these approaches are not working. This was causing some problems as I was trying to use detr(M) in another function, problems which I was able to bypass, but why is this happening? What is the compiler doing here, why was M modified even though I operated only on Mi?
(I am using Spyder 3.3.2, Python 3.7.1)
(I am sorry if this question is silly, but I have only started learning python and new to coding in general. This question means a lot to me because I still don't have a deep understanding of this language.)
See python documentation about assignment:
https://docs.python.org/3/library/copy.html
Assignment statements in Python do not copy objects, they create bindings between a target and an object. For collections that are mutable or contain mutable items, a copy is sometimes needed so one can change one copy without changing the other.
You need to import copy and then use Mi = copy.deepcopy(M)
See also
How to deep copy a list?
Related
I need help in speeding up the following block of code:
import numpy as np
x = 100
pp = np.zeros((x, x))
M = np.ones((x,x))
arrayA = np.random.uniform(0,5,2000)
arrayB = np.random.uniform(0,5,2000)
for i in range(x):
for j in range(x):
y = np.multiply(arrayA, np.exp(-1j*(M[j,i])*arrayB))
p = np.trapz(y, arrayB) # Numerical evaluation/integration y
pp[j,i] = abs(p**2)
Is there a function in numpy or another method to rewrite this piece of code with so that the nested for-loops can be omitted? My idea would be a function that multiplies every element of M with the vector arrayB so we get a 100 x 100 matrix in which each element is a vector itself. And then further each vector gets multiplied by arrayA with the np.multiply() function to then again obtain a 100 x 100 matrix in which each element is a vector itself. Then at the end perform numerical integration for each of those vectors with np.trapz() to obtain a 100 x 100 matrix of which each element is a scalar.
My problem though is that I lack knowledge of such functions which would perform this.
Thanks in advance for your help!
Edit:
Using broadcasting with
M = np.asarray(M)[..., None]
y = 1000*arrayA*np.exp(-1j*M*arrayB)
return np.trapz(y,B)
works and I can ommit the for-loops. However, this is not faster, but instead a little bit slower in my case. This might be a memory issue.
y = np.multiply(arrayA, np.exp(-1j*(M[j,i])*arrayB))
can be written as
y = arrayA * np.exp(-1j*M[:,:,None]*arrayB
producing a (x,x,2000) array.
But the next step may need adjustment. I'm not familiar with np.trapz.
np.trapz(y, arrayB)
Here Get intersecting rows across two 2D numpy arrays they got intersecting rows by using the function np.intersect1d. So i changed the function to use np.setdiff1d to get the set difference but it doesn't work properly. The following is the code.
def set_diff2d(A, B):
nrows, ncols = A.shape
dtype={'names':['f{}'.format(i) for i in range(ncols)],
'formats':ncols * [A.dtype]}
C = np.setdiff1d(A.view(dtype), B.view(dtype))
return C.view(A.dtype).reshape(-1, ncols)
The following data is used for checking the issue:
min_dis=400
Xt = np.arange(50, 3950, min_dis)
Yt = np.arange(50, 3950, min_dis)
Xt, Yt = np.meshgrid(Xt, Yt)
Xt[::2] += min_dis/2
# This is the super set
turbs_possible_locs = np.vstack([Xt.flatten(), Yt.flatten()]).T
# This is the subset
subset = turbs_possible_locs[np.random.choice(turbs_possible_locs.shape[0],50, replace=False)]
diffs = set_diff2d(turbs_possible_locs, subset)
diffs is supposed to have a shape of 50x2, but it is not.
Ok, so to fix your issue try the following tweak:
def set_diff2d(A, B):
nrows, ncols = A.shape
dtype={'names':['f{}'.format(i) for i in range(ncols)], 'formats':ncols * [A.dtype]}
C = np.setdiff1d(A.copy().view(dtype), B.copy().view(dtype))
return C
The problem was - A after .view(...) was applied was broken in half - so it had 2 tuple columns, instead of 1, like B. I.e. as a consequence of applying dtype you essentially collapsed 2 columns into tuple - which is why you could do the intersection in 1d in the first place.
Quoting after documentation:
"
a.view(some_dtype) or a.view(dtype=some_dtype) constructs a view of the array’s memory with a different data-type. This can cause a reinterpretation of the bytes of memory.
"
Src https://numpy.org/doc/stable/reference/generated/numpy.ndarray.view.html
I think the "reinterpretation" is exactly what happened - hence for the sake of simplicity I would just .copy() the array.
NB however I wouldn't square it - it's always A which gets 'broken' - whether it's an assignment, or inline B is always fine...
So I'm struggling with Question 3. I think the representation of L would be a function that goes something like this:
import numpy as np
def L(a, b):
#L is 2x2 Matrix, that is
return(np.dot([[0,1],[1,1]],[a,b]))
def fibPow(n):
if(n==1):
return(L(0,1))
if(n%2==0):
return np.dot(fibPow(n/2), fibPow(n/2))
else:
return np.dot(L(0,1),np.dot(fibPow(n//2), fibPow(n//2)))
Given b I'm pretty sure I'm wrong. What should I be doing? Any help would be appreciated. I don't think I'm supposed to use the golden ratio property of the Fibonacci series. What should my a and b be?
EDIT: I've updated my code. For some reason it doesn't work. L will give me the right answer, but my exponentiation seems to be wrong. Can someone tell me what I'm doing wrong
With an edited code, you are almost there. Just don't cram everything into one function. That leads to subtle mistakes, which I think you may enjoy to find.
Now, L is not function. As I said before, it is a matrix. And the core of the problem is to compute its nth power. Consider
L = [[0,1], [1,1]]
def nth_power(matrix, n):
if n == 1:
return matrix
if (n % 2) == 0:
temp = nth_power(matrix, n/2)
return np.dot(temp, temp)
else:
temp = nth_power(matrix, n // 2)
return np.dot(matrix, np.dot(temp, temp))
def fibPow(n):
Ln = nth_power(L, n)
return np.dot(L, [0,1])[1]
The nth_power is almost identical to your approach, with some trivial optimization. You may optimize it further by eliminating recursion.
First thing first, there is no L(n, a, b). There is just L(a, b), a well defined linear operator which transforms a vector a, b into a vector b, a+b.
Now a huge hint: a linear operator is a matrix (in this case, 2x2, and very simple). Can you spell it out?
Now, applying this matrix n times in a row to an initial vector (in this case, 0, 1), by matrix magic is equivalent to applying nth power of L once to the initial vector. This is what Question 2 is about.
Once you determine how this matrix looks like, fibPow reduces to computing its nth power, and multiplying the result by 0, 1. To get O(log n) complexity, check out exponentiation by squaring.
I'm doing data analysis that involves minimizing the least-square-error between a set of points and a corresponding set of orthogonal functions. In other words, I'm taking a set of y-values and a set of functions, and trying to zero in on the x-value that gets all of the functions closest to their corresponding y-value. Everything is being done in a 'data_set' class. The functions that I'm comparing to are all stored in one list, and I'm using a class method to calculate the total lsq-error for all of them:
self.fits = [np.poly1d(np.polyfit(self.x_data, self.y_data[n],10)) for n in range(self.num_points)]
def error(self, x, y_set):
arr = [(y_set[n] - self.fits[n](x))**2 for n in range(self.num_points)]
return np.sum(arr)
This was fine when I had significantly more time than data, but now I'm taking thousands of x-values, each with a thousand y-values, and that for loop is unacceptably slow. I've been trying to use np.vectorize:
#global scope
def func(f,x):
return f(x)
vfunc = np.vectorize(func, excluded=['x'])
…
…
#within data_set class
def error(self, x, y_set):
arr = (y_set - vfunc(self.fits, x))**2
return np.sum(arr)
func(self.fits[n], x) works fine as long as n is valid, and as far as I can tell from the docs, vfunc(self.fits, x) should be equivalent to
[self.fits[n](x) for n in range(self.num_points)]
but instead it throws:
ValueError: cannot copy sequence with size 10 to array axis with dimension 11
10 is the degree of the polynomial fit, and 11 is (by definition) the number of terms in it, but I have no idea why they're showing up here. If I change the fit order, the error message reflects the change. It seems like np.vectorize is taking each element of self.fits as a list rather than a np.poly1d function.
Anyway, if someone could either help me understand np.vectorize better, or suggest another way to eliminate that loop, that would be swell.
As the functions in question all have a very similar structure we can "manually" vectorize once we've extracted the poly coefficients. In fact, the function is then a quite simple one-liner, eval_many below:
import numpy as np
def poly_vec(list_of_polys):
O = max(p.order for p in list_of_polys)+1
C = np.zeros((len(list_of_polys), O))
for p, c in zip(list_of_polys, C):
c[len(c)-p.order-1:] = p.coeffs
return C
def eval_many(x,C):
return C#np.vander(x,11).T
# make example
list_of_polys = [np.poly1d(v) for v in np.random.random((1000,11))]
x = np.random.random((2000,))
# put all coeffs in one master matrix
C = poly_vec(list_of_polys)
# test
assert np.allclose(eval_many(x,C), [p(x) for p in list_of_polys])
from timeit import timeit
print('vectorized', timeit(lambda: eval_many(x,C), number=100)*10)
print('loopy ', timeit(lambda: [p(x) for p in list_of_polys], number=10)*100)
Sample run:
vectorized 6.817315469961613
loopy 56.35076989419758
Suppose that I have a (400,10) array called x and a (400,10) array called y. Is that possible to do a polyfit of each row in y to the corresponding row in x without iteration? If with for loop it will be something like
import numpy as np
coe = np.zeros((400,3))
for i in np.arange(y.shape[0]):
coe[i,:] = np.polyfit(x[i,:], y[i,:], 2)
Because the 400 rows in x is totally different, I cannot just apply np.polyfit with the same x coordinate to a multi-dimensional array y.
Have you tried a comprehension?
coe = [tuple(np.polyfit(x[i,:], y[i,:], 2)) for i in range(400)]
The range(400) emits the values 0 to 399 into i
For each i, you compute the polyfit for x[i,:] vs y[i,:]. I believe the results are a tuple (p, v)
The resulting list-of-tuples is assigned to coe
At the innermost levels, this is an iteration - but in Python 3, such comprehensions are optimized for performance at the C level, so you will probably see a nice performance boost doing it this way over using a for: loop.