I want to decompose a part like this, into an array of x rows and y columns, and then do the operations. Mainly use the loop statement (for). Do you guys have a similar example? thank you all very much.
just be like:
equation
for i in 1:n-1 loop
for j in 1:m-1 loop
//equations
T[i+1,j] = T[i,j]+something+...;
T[i,j+1] = ...;
end for;
end for;
The best example I could find is the following: Modelica.Electrical.Analog.Basic.M_Transformer, although the loop is "only" in the initial equation section.
What is more common, is to use loops in connect statements, like in Modelica.Electrical.Batteries.BaseClasses.BaseStackWithSensors. But that will likely not be a good fit for your task.
Some general advise:
A good read to start with the topic is: https://mbe.modelica.university/behavior/arrays/looping/
For complex for/if-statements it is often simpler to formulate them in an algorithm section. Those can be placed in a function and "ease" some of the pretty strict requirements of the equation section, like allowing a multiple assignments for a single variable. It will be more like a coding in a procedural programming language.
If you prefer to write the statements in the equation section (which can make sense performance-wise) you need to make sure, that every unknown needs exactly one equation to compute it.
Related
I have a differential equation that's a function of around 30 constants. The differential equation is a system of (N^2+1) equations (where N is typically 4). Solving this system produces N^2+1 functions.
Often I want to see how the solution of the differential equation functionally depends on constants. For example, I might want to plot the maximum value of one of the output functions and see how that maximum changes for each solution of the differential equation as I linearly increase one of the input constants.
Is there a particularly clean method of doing this?
Right now I turn my differential-equation-solving script into a large function that returns an array of output functions. (Some of the inputs are vectors & matrices). For example:
for i = 1:N
[OutputArray1(i, :), OutputArray2(i, :), OutputArray3(i, :), OutputArray4(i, :), OutputArray5(i, :)] = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
Here I loop through the function. The function solves a differential equation, and then returns the set of solution functions for that input parameter, and then each is appended as a row to a matrix.
There are a few issues I have with my method:
If I want to see the solution to the differential equation for a different parameter, I have to redefine the function so that it is an input of one of the thirty other parameters. For the sake of code readability, I cannot see myself explicitly writing all of the input parameters as individual inputs. (Although I've read that structures might be helpful here, but I'm not sure how that would be implemented.)
I typically get lost in parameter space and often have to update the same parameter across multiple scripts. I have a script that runs the differential-equation-solving function, and I have a second script that plots the set of simulated data. (And I will save the local variables to a file so that I can load them explicitly for plotting, but I often get lost figuring out which file is associated with what set of parameters). The remaining parameters that are not in the input of the function are inside the function itself. I've tried making the parameters global, but doing so drastically slows down the speed of my code. Additionally, some of the inputs are arrays I would like to plot and see before running the solver. (Some of the inputs are time-dependent boundary conditions, and I often want to see what they look like first.)
I'm trying to figure out a good method for me to keep track of everything. I'm trying to come up with a smart method of saving generated figures with a file tag that displays all the parameters associated with that figure. I can save such a file as a notepad file with a generic tagging-number that's listed in the title of the figure, but I feel like this is an awkward system. It's particularly awkward because it's not easy to see what's different about a long list of 30+ parameters.
Overall, I feel as though what I'm doing is fairly simple, yet I feel as though I don't have a good coding methodology and consequently end up wasting a lot of time saving almost-identical functions and scripts to solve fairly simple tasks.
It seems like what you really want here is something that deals with N-D arrays instead of splitting up the outputs.
If all of the OutputArray_ variables have the same number of rows, then the line
for i = 1:N
[OutputArray1(i, :), OutputArray2(i, :), OutputArray3(i, :), OutputArray4(i, :), OutputArray5(i, :)] = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
seems to suggest that what you really want your function to return is an M x K array (where in this case, K = 5), and you want to pack that output into an M x K x N array. That is, it seems like you'd want to refactor your DE_Simulation to give you something like
for i = 1:N
OutputArray(:,:,i) = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
If they aren't the same size, then a struct or a table is probably the best way to go, as you could assign to one element of the struct array per loop iteration or one row of the table per loop iteration (the table approach would assume that the size of the variables doesn't change from iteration to iteration).
If, for some reason, you really need to have these as separate outputs (and perhaps later as separate inputs), then what you probably want is a cell array. In that case you'd be able to deal with the variable number of inputs doing something like
for i = 1:N
[OutputArray{i, 1:K}] = DE_Simulation(Parameter1Array(i));
end
I hesitate to even write that, though, because this almost certainly seems like the wrong data structure for what you're trying to do.
Last week I asked the following:
https://stackoverflow.com/questions/32658199/vectorizing-gibbs-sampler-in-matlab
Perhaps it was not that clear what I want to do, so this might be more clear.
I would like to vectorize a "for" loop in matlab, where some variables inside of the loop are bidirectionally related. So, here is an example:
A=2;
B=3;
for i=1:10000
A=3*B;
B=exp(A*(-1/2))
end
Thank you once again for your time.
A quick Excel calculation indicates that this quickly converges to 0.483908 (after much less than 10000 loops - so one way of speeding it up would be to check for convergence). If A and B are always 2 and 3 respectively, you could just replace the loop with this value.
Alternatively, using some series analysis you might be able to come up with an analytical expression for B when i is large - although with the nested exponents deriving this is a bit beyond my own abilities!
Edit
A bit of googling reveals this. Wikipedia states that for a tetration of x to infinity (i.e. x^x^x^x^x...), the solution y satisfies y = x^y. In your case, for example, 0.483908 = e^(-3/2)^0.483908, so 0.483908 is a solution. Not sure how you would exploit this though.
Wikipedia also gives a convergence condition, which might be of use to you: x lies between e^-e and e^1/e.
Final Edit (?)
Turns out you need Lambert's W function to solve for equations of the form of y = x^y. There seems to be no native function for this, but there seems to be something in the FileExchange - see here and here.
I am trying to vectorise a for loop. I have a set of coordinates listed in a [68x200] matrix called plt2, and I have another set of coordinates listed in a [400x1] matrix called trans1. I want to create a three dimensional array called dist1, where in dist1(:,:,1) I have all of the values of plt2 with the first value of trans1 subtracted, all the way through to the end of trans1. I have a for loop like this which works but is very slow:
for i=1:source_points;
dist1(:,:,i)=plt2-trans1(i,1);
end
Thanks for any help.
If I understood correctly, this can be easily solved with bsxfun:
dist1 = bsxfun(#minus, plt2, shiftdim(trans1,-2));
Or, if speed is important, use this equivalent version (thanks to #chappjc), which seems to be much faster:
dist1 = bsxfun(#minus, plt2, reshape(trans1,1,1,[]));
In general, bsxfun is a very useful function for cases like this. Its behaviour can be summarized as follows: for any singleton dimension of any of its two input arrays, it applies an "implicit" for loop to the other array along the same dimension. See the doc for further details.
Vectorizing is a good first optimization, and is usually much easier than going all in writing your own compiled mex-function (in c).
However, the golden middle-way for power users is Matlab Coder (this also applies to slightly harder problems than the one posted, where vectorization is more or less impossible). First, create a small m-file function around the slow code, in your case:
function dist1 = do_some_stuff(source_points,dist1,plt2,trans1)
for i=1:source_points;
dist1(:,:,i)=plt2-trans1(i,1);
end
Then create a simple wrapper function which calls do_some_stuff as well as defines the inputs. This file should really be only 5 rows, with only the bare essentials needed. Matlab Coder uses the wrapper function to understand what typical proper inputs to do_some_stuff are.
You can now fire up the Matlab Coder gui from the Apps section and simply add do_some_stuff under Entry-Point Files. Press Autodefine types and select your wrapper function. Go to build and press build, and you are good to go! This approach usually bumps up the execution speed substantially with almost no effort.
BR
Magnus
I've got an ODE system working perfectly. But now, I want in each iteration, sort in ascending order the solution vector. I've tried many ways but I could not do it. Does anyone know how to do?
Here is a simplified code:
function dtemp = tanque1(t,temp)
for i=1:N
if i==1
dtemp(i)=(((-k(i)*At*(temp(i)-temp(i+1)))/(y))-(U*As(i)*(temp(i)-Tamb)))/(ro(i)*vol_nodo*cp(i));
end
if i>1 && i<N
dtemp(i)=(((k(i)*At*(temp(i-1)-temp(i)))/(y))-((k(i)*At*(temp(i)-temp(i+1)))/(y))-(U*As(i)*(temp(i)-Tamb)))/(ro(i)*vol_nodo*cp(i));
end
if i==N
dtemp(i)=(((k(i)*At*(temp(i-1)-temp(i)))/(y))-(U*As(i)*(temp(i)-Tamb)))/(ro(i)*vol_nodo*cp(i));
end
end
end
Test Script:
inicial=343.15*ones(200,1);
[t temp]=ode45(#tanque1,0:360:18000,inicial);
It looks like you have three different sets of differential equations depending on the index i of the solution vector. I don't think you mean "sort," but rather a more efficient way to implement what you've already done - basically vectorization. Provided I haven't accidentally made any typos (you should check), the following should do what you need:
function dtemp = tanque1(t,temp)
dtemp(1) = (-k(1)*At*(temp(1)-temp(2))/y-U*As(1)*(temp(1)-Tamb))/(ro(1)*vol_nodo*cp(1));
dtemp(2:N-1) = (k(2:N-1).*(diff(temp(1:N-1))-diff(temp(2:N)))*At/y-U*As(2:N-1).*(temp(2:N-1)-Tamb))./(vol_nodo*ro(2:N-1).*cp(2:N-1));
dtemp(N) = (k(N)*At*(temp(N-1)-temp(N))/y-U*As(N)*(temp(N)-Tamb))/(ro(N)*vol_nodo*cp(N));
You'll still need to define N and the other parameters and ensure that temp is returned as a column vector. You could also try replacing N with the end keyword, which might be faster. The two uses of diff make the code shorter, but, depending on the value of N, they may also speed up the calculation. They could be replaced with temp(1:N-2)-temp(2:N-1) and temp(2:N-1)-temp(3:N). It may be possible to collapse these down to a single vectorized equation, but I'll leave that as an exercise for you to attempt if you like.
Note that I also removed a great many unnecessary parentheses for clarity. As you learn Matlab you'll to get used to the order of operations and figure out when parentheses are needed.
Let's say I have a vector v with elements 1...n, and I know that v(1) = v_0, and then
v(i+1) = 1/(a*v(i) + b).
This is straightforward to implement using either a single for loop, or recursion. Recursion is a terrible idea in Matlab, and the single foor loop is still not optimal if possible. Can I vectorize such a operation?
And to make this post more useful, is there a general way to vectorize
v(i+1) = f(v(i)),
where f(x) is an arbitrary function? What about something like
v(i+1) = a(i)*v(i) + b(i)
where a, and b are now vectors.
A for loop is not as bad in MATLAB as it used to be, due to just-in-time compilation. When in doubt, just write the loop and continue with your work. Unless your vectors are gigantic, the loop won't bother you in the slightest. If (and only if) the loop is a bottleneck, go back and try silly MATLAB tricks to optimize.
In a specific answer to your question, no, I do not believe there's a generic way to express v(i+1) = f(v(i)). You could easily write one using a function handle, but the performance would be something less than just open-coding the expression.