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.
Related
In the code supplied below I am trying to iterate over 2D numpy array [i][k]
Originally it is a code which was written in Fortran 77 which is older than my grandfather. I am trying to adapt it to python.
(for people interested whatabouts: it is a simple hydraulics transients event solver)
Bear in mind that all variables are introduced in my code which I don't paste here.
H = np.zeros((NS,50))
Q = np.zeros((NS,50))
Here I am assigning the first row values:
for i in range(NS):
H[0][i] = HR-i*R*Q0**2
Q[0][i] = Q0
CVP = .5*Q0**2/H[N]
T = 0
k = 0
TAU = 1
#Interior points:
HP = np.zeros((NS,50))
QP = np.zeros((NS,50))
while T<=Tmax:
T += dt
k += 1
for i in range(1,N):
CP = H[k][i-1]+Q[k][i-1]*(B-R*abs(Q[k][i-1]))
CM = H[k][i+1]-Q[k][i+1]*(B-R*abs(Q[k][i+1]))
HP[k][i-1] = 0.5*(CP+CM)
QP[k][i-1] = (HP[k][i-1]-CM)/B
#Boundary Conditions:
HP[k][0] = HR
QP[k][0] = Q[k][1]+(HP[k][0]-H[k][1]-R*Q[k][1]*abs(Q[k][1]))/B
if T == Tc:
TAU = 0
CV = 0
else:
TAU = (1.-T/Tc)**Em
CV = CVP*TAU**2
CP = H[k][N-1]+Q[k][N-1]*(B-R*abs(Q[k][N-1]))
QP[k][N] = -CV*B+np.sqrt(CV**2*(B**2)+2*CV*CP)
HP[k][N] = CP-B*QP[k][N]
for i in range(NS):
H[k][i] = HP[k][i]
Q[k][i] = QP[k][i]
Remember i is for rows and k is for columns
What I am expecting is that for all k number of columns the values should be calculated until T<=Tmax condition is met. I cannot figure out what my mistake is, I am getting the following errors:
RuntimeWarning: divide by zero encountered in true_divide
CVP = .5*Q0**2/H[N]
RuntimeWarning: invalid value encountered in multiply
QP[N][k] = -CV*B+np.sqrt(CV**2*(B**2)+2*CV*CP)
QP[N][k] = -CV*B+np.sqrt(CV**2*(B**2)+2*CV*CP)
ValueError: setting an array element with a sequence.
Looking at your first iteration:
H = np.zeros((NS,50))
Q = np.zeros((NS,50))
for i in range(NS):
H[0][i] = HR-i*R*Q0**2
Q[0][i] = Q0
The shape of H is (NS,50), but when you iterate over a range(NS) you apply that index to the 2nd dimension. Why? Shouldn't it apply to the dimension with size NS?
In numpy arrays have 'C' order by default. Last dimension is inner most. They can have a F (fortran) order, but let's not go there. Thinking of the 2d array as a table, we typically talk of rows and columns, though they don't have a formal definition in numpy.
Lets assume you want to set the first column to these values:
for i in range(NS):
H[i, 0] = HR - i*R*Q0**2
Q[i, 0] = Q0
But we can do the assignment whole rows or columns at a time. I believe new versions of Fortran also have these 'whole-array' functions.
Q[:, 0] = Q0
H[:, 0] = HR - np.arange(NS) * R * Q0**2
One point of caution when translating to Python. Indexing starts with 0; so does ranges and np.arange(...).
H[0][i] is functionally the same as H[0,i]. But when using slices you have to use the H[:,i] format.
I suspect your other iterations have similar problems, but I'll stop here for now.
Regarding the errors:
The first:
RuntimeWarning: divide by zero encountered in true_divide
CVP = .5*Q0**2/H[N]
You initialize H as zeros so it is normal that it complains of division by zero. Maybe you should add a conditional.
The third:
QP[N][k] = -CV*B+np.sqrt(CV**2*(B**2)+2*CV*CP)
ValueError: setting an array element with a sequence.
You define CVP = .5*Q0**2/H[N] and then CV = CVP*TAU**2 which is a sequence. And then you try to assign a derivate form it to QP[N][K] which is an element. You are trying to insert an array to a value.
For the second error I think it might be related to the third. If you could provide more information I would like to try to understand what happens.
Hope this has helped.
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.
I've been trying to code a function that takes variables a and b which are start and end points and calculate how far to go from a to b as a fraction between 0 and 1. (That fraction is variable x).
The code I have partially works, but it does not always work properly with negative numbers. For example if a = -2 and b = -1 and x = 1 the output should be -1 but I get -2.
I have been solving similar problems thus far using if statements but I don't want to continue like this. Is there a more elegant solution?
def interval_point(a, b, x):
"""Given parameters a, b and x. Takes three numbers and interprets a and b
as the start and end point of an interval, and x as a fraction
between 0 and 1 that returns how far to go towards b, starting at a"""
if a == b:
value = a
elif a < 0 and b < 0 and x == 0:
value = a
elif a < 0 and b < 0:
a1 = abs(a)
b1 = abs(b)
value = -((a1-b1) + ((a1-b1)*x))
else:
value = (a + (b-a)*x)
return(value)
I have played around with the maths somewhat and I have arrived at a much simpler way of solving the problem.
This is what the function now looks like:
def interval_point(a, b, x):
"""Given parameters a, b and x. Takes three numbers and interprets a and b
as the start and end point of an interval, and x as a fraction
between 0 and 1 that returns how far to go towards b, starting at a"""
return((b - a) * x + a)
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.
This is code an algorithm I found for Sieve of Eratosthenes for python3. What I want to do is edit it so the I can input a range of bottom and top and then input a list of primes up to the bottom one and it will output a list of primes within that range.
However, I am not quite sure how to do that.
If you can help that would be greatly appreciated.
from math import sqrt
def sieve(end):
if end < 2: return []
#The array doesn't need to include even numbers
lng = ((end//2)-1+end%2)
# Create array and assume all numbers in array are prime
sieve = [True]*(lng+1)
# In the following code, you're going to see some funky
# bit shifting and stuff, this is just transforming i and j
# so that they represent the proper elements in the array.
# The transforming is not optimal, and the number of
# operations involved can be reduced.
# Only go up to square root of the end
for i in range(int(sqrt(end)) >> 1):
# Skip numbers that aren’t marked as prime
if not sieve[i]: continue
# Unmark all multiples of i, starting at i**2
for j in range( (i*(i + 3) << 1) + 3, lng, (i << 1) + 3):
sieve[j] = False
# Don't forget 2!
primes = [2]
# Gather all the primes into a list, leaving out the composite numbers
primes.extend([(i << 1) + 3 for i in range(lng) if sieve[i]])
return primes
I think the following is working:
def extend_erathostene(A, B, prime_up_to_A):
sieve = [ True ]* (B-A)
for p in prime_up_to_A:
# first multiple of p greater than A
m0 = ((A+p-1)/p)*p
for m in range( m0, B, p):
sieve[m-A] = False
limit = int(ceil(sqrt(B)))
for p in range(A,limit+1):
if sieve[p-A]:
for m in range(p*2, B, p):
sieve[m-A] = False
return prime_up_to_A + [ A+c for (c, isprime) in enumerate(sieve) if isprime]
This problem is known as the "segmented sieve of Eratosthenes." Google gives several useful references.
You already have the primes from 2 to end, so you just need to filter the list that is returned.
One way is to run the sieve code with end = top and modify the last line to give you only numbers bigger than bottom:
If the range is small compared with it's magnitude (i.e. top-bottom is small compared with bottom), then you better use a different algorithm:
Start from bottom and iterate over the odd numbers checking whether they are prime. You need an isprime(n) function which just checks whether n is divisible by all the odd numbers from 1 to sqrt(n):
def isprime(n):
i=2
while (i*i<=n):
if n%i==0: return False
i+=1
return True