Note: I've searched for the answer to this already but I can't find what I need. I may have overlooked something or maybe this is referred to in a different way. I'll delete this if someone points out that it is a duplicate, please let me know.
Question: How can I add multiple conditions to the product or mul in Maple?
Example: I am trying to re-create the following, I cannot seem to find a way to add both r != k and r=1 as parameters.
I've gone over the documentation of the product command and maybe I am missing something.
Conditional products can be achieved using sets for index range (in the example below R is a set or can be a list, but set is better in this case since it's easier to remove its members), but that set must not have unknown parameters (so it's a numeric range).
For example:
[> j:=6: k:=3:
R:={seq(s, s in {seq(s,s=1..j-1)} minus {k})};
mul(r/(r-k), r in R);
The output will be:
R := {1, 2, 4, 5}
10
You can do it without additional variable R too:
[> mul(r/(r-k), r in {seq(s, s in {seq(s,s=1..j-1)} minus {k})});
A comparison of mul and product:
mul works only for numeric ranges and there should be no infinity involved, it also works for r in R case.
product can work with symbolic ranges, also range can have infinity, but it doesn't work for r in R case.
product is more powerful, but mul is much faster, so for numeric ranges mul should be always used instead (similarly add should used instead of sum for numeric ranges).
You can use mul with parameters too, but the range should be numeric (R is defined above):
[> mul((a+r)/(b+r-k), r in R);
The output:
If you want the formula that you showed in your question to be displayed symbolically as you have, I don't have any idea at the moment in Maple. As you may have seen in the help page of product, it only accepts ranges of the form idx=n..m or idx=n and that's it. But if you have values in k and j and want to receive the result of your formula, you can use mul, not product. As #Robai did a comparison in her answer between mul and product, the important thing here is that product does not support its second argument (the range) to be in the form idx in set, no "in" for product and that means you can not use product for your case even with the formulation given in #Robai's answer.
Now for mul, other than the set-minus idea of #Robai's answer. Here is another approach (you can read more about it in another answer I posted for another question in this link https://stackoverflow.com/a/72498377/6195473).
j := 5:
k := 2:
idxs := select( x -> x <> k, [ seq( r, r = 1..j-1 ) ] );
(k/(j-k)) * mul( r/(r-k), r in idxs );
Here is a screenshot from the output.
Related
I am totally new in answer set proramming (ASP Core-2 with Clingo) and am struggling with a problem I have not been able to solve.
The goal is to solve the 'Hamiltonian Path' problem, which is described as follows:
In a directed graph we're looking for a path which visits all nodes of the graph exactly once.
We can assume that all edge relations are known as facts, and that the input graph does actually contain a Hamiltonian Path. The desired output are the predicates
visited(NodeName, StepInOrder)
that each contains a node and the number at which step this node is reached. So for example, an output could be
visited(a, 1), visited(c, 2), visited(b, 3)
See my code below. The problem is, that at the last line, the program seems to enter an infinite loop. And I do not understand what the cause of this could probably be.
% pick one random start node
1 <= {startNode(N) : node(N)} <= 1.
% define helper predicate inPath which is true once and false once for each edge of the graph
{inPath(X, Y)} :- edge(X,Y).
% create possible paths
visited(X, 1) :- startNode(X).
visited(Y, C+1) :- visited(X, C), inPath(X, Y), not visited(Y, _). % infinite loop here
% some killing constraints to eliminate invalid solution candidates...
My guess is, that the program is generating an infinite number of answer sets, which all differ in their #stepInOrder value, because of some sort of cycle, but I thought this should be prevented by the not visited(Y, _).
If you need any additional context, let me know. Thanks in advance!
Lets go through your code:
1 <= {startNode(N) : node(N)} <= 1.
I guess this works, but just writing 1 {startNode(N) : node(N)} 1. or {startNode(N) : node(N)} == 1. would do the same.
% define helper predicate inPath which is true once and false once for each edge of the graph
{inPath(X, Y)} :- edge(X,Y).
This one works, allthough there are more efficient approaches to write it.
% create possible paths
visited(X, 1) :- startNode(X).
visited(Y, C+1) :- visited(X, C), inPath(X, Y), not visited(Y, _). % infinite loop here
You basically say: a node Y is visited at time C+1, if a node X was visited at time C, there is a path from X to Y, and at no time Y was visited or will be visited. So you clearly want to generate something but if you generate it you violate the rule which generated it. In clingo atoms can not change values. If an atom is labeled as True, it is True the whole time.
So I would probably write something like this:
1 { visited(Y,C+1) : inPath(X,Y) } 1 :- visited(X, C).
which reads: given X is visited at time C, the number of outgoing marked edges from X to any node Y is exactly 1. Mark Y as visited at time C+1.
All what is missing now, is a constraint to include all nodes to be visited.
You might want to have a look at this question from around the same time. The solution of the user has a different approach, he or she does not assign numbers to the nodes to indicate an order.
I'm just learning matlab and I have a snippet of code which I don't understand the syntax of. The x is an n x 1 vector.
Code is below
p = (min(x):(max(x)/300):max(x))';
The p vector is used a few lines later to plot the function
plot(p,pp*model,'r');
It generates an arithmetic progression.
An arithmetic progression is a sequence of numbers where the next number is equal to the previous number plus a constant. In an arithmetic progression, this constant must stay the same value.
In your code,
min(x) is the initial value of the sequence
max(x) / 300 is the increment amount
max(x) is the stopping criteria. When the result of incrementation exceeds this stopping criteria, no more items are generated for the sequence.
I cannot comment on this particular choice of initial value and increment amount, without seeing the surrounding code where it was used.
However, from a naive perspective, MATLAB has a linspace command which does something similar, but not exactly the same.
Certainly looks to me like an odd thing to be doing. Basically, it's creating a vector of values p that range from the smallest to the largest values of x, which is fine, but it's using steps between successive values of max(x)/300.
If min(x)=300 and max(x)=300.5 then this would only give 1 point for p.
On the other hand, if min(x)=-1000 and max(x)=0.3 then p would have thousands of elements.
In fact, it's even worse. If max(x) is negative, then you would get an error as p would start from min(x), some negative number below max(x), and then each element would be smaller than the last.
I think p must be used to create pp or model somehow as well so that the plot works, and without knowing how I can't suggest how to fix this, but I can't think of a good reason why it would be done like this. using linspace(min(x),max(x),300) or setting the step to (max(x)-min(x))/299 would make more sense to me.
This code examines an array named x, and finds its minimum value min(x) and its maximum value max(x). It takes the maximum value and divides it by the constant 300.
It doesn't explicitly name any variable, setting it equal to max(x)/300, but for the sake of explanation, I'm naming it "incr", short for increment.
And, it creates a vector named p. p looks something like this:
p = [min(x), min(x) + incr, min(x) + 2*incr, ..., min(x) + 299*incr, max(x)];
Say I give something like AB+AB+BA to matlab (or mupad), and ask it to simplify it. the answer should be: 2AB+BA. Can this be done in matlab or mupad?
Edit:
Ok, this is feeling rediculous. I'm trying to do this in either matlab or mulab, and.. it's frustrating not knowing how to do what should be the simplest things, and not being able to find the answers right away via google.
I want to expand the following, multiplied together, as a taylor series:
eq1 := exp(g*l*B):
eq2 := exp(l*A):
eq3 := exp((1-g)*l*B):
g is gamma, l is lambda (don't know how to represent either of these in matlab or mulab). A and B don't commute. I want to multiply the three exponentials together, expand, select all terms of a given power in lambda, and simplify the result. Is there a simple way to do this? or should I give up and go to another system, like maple?
This is mupad, not matlab:
operator("x", _vector_product, Binary, 1999):
A x B + A x B + B x A
returns
2 A x B + B x A
The vetor product is used, simply because it matches the described requirements.
I am trying to create a tic-tac-toe program as a mental exercise and I have the board states stored as booleans like so:
http://i.imgur.com/xBiuoAO.png
I would like to simplify this boolean expression...
(a&b&c) | (d&e&f) | (g&h&i) | (a&d&g) | (b&e&h) | (c&f&i) | (a&e&i) | (g&e&c)
My first thoughts were to use a Karnaugh Map but there were no solvers online that supported 9 variables.
and heres the question:
First of all, how would I know if a boolean condition is already as simple as possible?
and second: What is the above boolean condition simplified?
2. Simplified condition:
The original expression
a&b&c|d&e&f|g&h&i|a&d&g|b&e&h|c&f&i|a&e&i|g&e&c
can be simplified to the following, knowing that & is more prioritary than |
e&(d&f|b&h|a&i|g&c)|a&(b&c|d&g)|i&(g&h|c&f)
which is 4 chars shorter, performs in the worst case 18 & and | evaluations (the original one counted 23)
There is no shorter boolean formula (see point below). If you switch to matrices, maybe you can find another solution.
1. Making sure we got the smallest formula
Normally, it is very hard to find the smallest formula. See this recent paper if you are more interested. But in our case, there is a simple proof.
We will reason about a formula being the smallest with respect to the formula size, where for a variable a, size(a)=1, for a boolean operation size(A&B) = size(A|B) = size(A) + 1 + size(B), and for negation size(!A) = size(A) (thus we can suppose that we have Negation Normal Form at no cost).
With respect to that size, our formula has size 37.
The proof that you cannot do better consists in first remarking that there are 8 rows to check, and that there is always a pair of letter distinguishing 2 different rows. Since we can regroup these 8 checks in no less than 3 conjuncts with the remaining variable, the number of variables in the final formula should be at least 8*2+3 = 19, from which we can deduce the minimal tree size.
Detailed proof
Let us suppose that a given formula F is the smallest and in NNF format.
F cannot contain negated variables like !a. For that, remark that F should be monotonic, that is, if it returns "true" (there is a winning row), then changing one of the variables from false to true should not change that result. According to Wikipedia, F can be written without negation. Even better, we can prove that we can remove the negation. Following this answer, we could convert back and from DNF format, removing negated variables in the middle or replacing them by true.
F cannot contain a sub-tree like a disjunction of two variables a|b.
For this formula to be useful and not exchangeable with either a or b, it would mean that there are contradicting assignments such that for example
F[a|b] = true and F[a] = false, therefore that a = false and b = true because of monotonicity. Also, in this case, turning b to false makes the whole formula false because false = F[a] = F[a|false] >= F[a|b](b = false).
Therefore there is a row passing by b which is the cause of the truth, and it cannot go through a, hence for example e = true and h = true.
And the checking of this row passes by the expression a|b for testing b. However, it means that with a,e,h being true and all other set to false, F is still true, which contradicts the purpose of the formula.
Every subtree looking like a&b checks a unique row. So the last letter should appear just above the corresponding disjunction (a&b|...)&{c somewhere for sure here}, or this leaf is useless and either a or b can be removed safely. Indeed, suppose that c does not appear above, and the game is where a&b&c is true and all other variables are false. Then the expression where c is supposed to be above returns false, so a&b will be always useless. So there is a shorter expression by removing a&b.
There are 8 independent branches, so there is at least 8 subtrees of type a&b. We cannot regroup them using a disjunction of 2 conjunctions since a, f and h never share the same rows, so there must be 3 outer variables. 8*2+3 makes 19 variables appear in the final formula.
A tree with 19 variables cannot have less than 18 operators, so in total the size have to be at least 19+18 = 37.
You can have variants of the above formula.
QED.
One option is doing the Karnaugh map manually. Since you have 9 variables, that makes for a 2^4 by 2^5 grid, which is rather large, and by the looks of the equation, probably not very interesting either.
By inspection, it doesn't look like a Karnaugh map will give you any useful information (Karnaugh maps basically reduce expressions such as ((!a)&b) | (a&b) into b), so in that sense of simplification, your expression is already as simple as it can get. But if you want to reduce the number of computations, you can factor out a few variables using the distributivity of the AND operators over ORs.
The best way to think of this is how a person would think of it. No person would say to themselves, "a and b and c, or if d and e and f," etc. They would say "Any three in a row, horizontally, vertically, or diagonally."
Also, instead of doing eight checks (3 rows, 3 columns, and 2 diagonals), you can do just four checks (three rows and one diagonal), then rotate the board 90 degrees, then do the same checks again.
Here's what you end up with. These functions all assume that the board is a three-by-three matrix of booleans, where true represents a winning symbol, and false represents a not-winning symbol.
def win?(board)
winning_row_or_diagonal?(board) ||
winning_row_or_diagonal?(rotate_90(board))
end
def winning_row_or_diagonal?(board)
winning_row?(board) || winning_diagonal?(board)
end
def winning_row?(board)
3.times.any? do |row_number|
three_in_a_row?(board, row_number, 0, 1, 0)
end
end
def winning_diagonal?(board)
three_in_a_row?(board, 0, 0, 1, 1)
end
def three_in_a_row?(board, x, y, delta_x, delta_y)
3.times.all? do |i|
board[x + i * delta_x][y + i * deltay]
end
end
def rotate_90(board)
board.transpose.map(&:reverse)
end
The matrix rotate is from here: https://stackoverflow.com/a/3571501/238886
Although this code is quite a bit more verbose, each function is clear in its intent. Rather than a long boolean expresion, the code now expresses the rules of tic-tac-toe.
You know it's a simple as possible when there are no common sub-terms to extract (e.g. if you had "a&b" in two different trios).
You know your tic tac toe solution must already be as simple as possible because any pair of boxes can belong to at most only one winning line (only one straight line can pass through two given points), so (a & b) can't be reused in any other win you're checking for.
(Also, "simple" can mean a lot of things; specifying what you mean may help you answer your own question. )
Suppose that f is a function of one parameter whose output is an n-dimensional (m1 × m2… × mn) array, and that B is a vector of length k whose elements are all valid arguments for f.
I am looking for a convenient, and more importantly, "shape-agnostic", MATLAB expression (or recipe) for producing the (n+1)-dimensional (m1 × m2 ×…× mn × k) array obtained by "stacking" the k n-dimensional arrays f(b), where the parameter b ranges over B.
To do this in numpy, I would use an expression like this one:
C = concatenate([f(b)[..., None] for b in B], -1)
In case it's of any use, I'll unpack this numpy expression below (see APPENDIX), but the feature of it that I want to emphasize now is that it is entirely agnostic about the shapes/sizes of f(b) and B. For the types of applications I have in mind, the ability to write such "shape-agnostic" code is of utmost importance. (I stress this point because much MATLAB code I come across for doing this sort of manipulation is decidedly not "shape-agnostic", and I don't know how to make it so.)
APPENDIX
In general, if A is a numpy array, then the expression A[..., None] can be thought as "reshaping" A so that it gets one extra, trivial, dimension. Thus, if f(b) is an n-dimensional (m1 × m2… × mn) array, then, f(b)[..., None] is the corresponding (n+1)-dimensional (m1 × m2 ×…× mn × 1) array. (The reason for adding this trivial dimension will become clear below.)
With this clarification out of the way, the meaning of the first argument to concatenate, namely:
[f(b)[..., None] for b in B]
is not too hard to decipher. It is a standard Python "list comprehension", and it evaluates to the sequence of the k (n+1)-dimensional (m1 × m2 ×…× mn × 1) arrays f(b)[..., None], as the parameter b ranges over the vector B.
The second argument to concatenate is the "axis" along which the concatenation is to be performed, expressed as the index of the corresponding dimension of the arrays to be concatenated. In this context, the index -1 plays the same role as the end keyword does in MATLAB. Therefore, the expression
concatenate([f(b)[..., None] for b in B], -1)
says "concatenate the arrays f(b)[..., None] along their last dimension". It is in order to provide this "last dimension" to concatenate over that it becomes necessary to reshape the f(b) arrays (with, e.g., f(b)[..., None]).
One way of doing that is:
% input:
f=#(x) x*ones(2,2)
b=1:3;
%%%%
X=arrayfun(f,b,'UniformOutput',0);
X=cat(ndims(X{1})+1,X{:});
Maybe there are more elegant solutions?
Shape agnosticity is an important difference between the philosophies underlying NumPy and Matlab; it's a lot harder to accomplish in Matlab than it is in NumPy. And in my view, shape agnosticity is a bad thing, too -- the shape of matrices has mathematical meaning. If some function or class were to completely ignore the shape of the inputs, or change them in a way that is not in accordance with mathematical notations, then that function destroys part of the language's functionality and intent.
In programmer terms, it's an actually useful feature designed to prevent shape-related bugs. Granted, it's often a "programmatic inconvenience", but that's no reason to adjust the language. It's really all in the mindset.
Now, having said that, I doubt an elegant solution for your problem exists in Matlab :) My suggestion would be to stuff all of the requirements into the function, so that you don't have to do any post-processing:
f = #(x) bsxfun(#times, permute(x(:), [2:numel(x) 1]), ones(2,2, numel(x)) )
Now obviously this is not quite right, since f(1) doesn't work and f(1:2) does something other than f(1:4), so obviously some tinkering has to be done. But as the ugliness of this oneliner already suggests, a dedicated function might be a better idea. The one suggested by Oli is pretty decent, provided you lock it up in a function of its own:
function y = f(b)
g = #(x)x*ones(2,2); %# or whatever else you want
y = arrayfun(g,b, 'uni',false);
y = cat(ndims(y{1})+1,y{:});
end
so that f(b) for any b produces the right output.