I'm trying to implement the 'Sport Scheduling Problem' (with a Round-Robin approach to break symmetries). The actual problem is of no importance. I simply want to declare the value at x[1,1] to be the set {1,2} and base the sets in the same column upon the first set. This is modelled as in the code below. The output is included in a screenshot below it. The problem is that the first set is not printed as a set but rather some sort of range while the values at x[2,1] and x[3,1] are indeed printed as sets and x[4,1] again as a range. Why is this? I assume that in the declaration of x that set of 1..n is treated as an integer but if it is not, how to declare it as integers?
EDIT: ONLY the first column of the output is of importance.
int: n = 8;
int: nw = n-1;
int: np = n div 2;
array[1..np, 1..nw] of var set of 1..n: x;
% BEGIN FIX FIRST WEEK $
constraint(
x[1,1] = {1, 2}
);
constraint(
forall(t in 2..np) (x[t,1] = {t+1, n+2-t} )
);
solve satisfy;
output[
"\(x[p,w])" ++ if w == nw then "\n" else "\t" endif | p in 1..np, w in 1..nw
]
Backend solver: Gecode
(Here's a summarize of my comments above.)
The range syntax is simply a shorthand for contiguous values in a set: 1..8 is a shorthand of the set {1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8}, and 5..6 is a shorthand for the set {5,6}.
The reason for this shorthand is probably since it's often - and arguably - easier to read the shorthand version than the full list, especially if it's a long list of integers, e.g. 1..1024. It also save space in the output of solutions.
For the two set versions, e.g. {1,2}, this explicit enumeration might be clearer to read than 1..2, though I tend to prefer the shorthand version in all cases.
Related
So I am creating an app to work out a value based on a series of variables. The variables are:
Gender
Age
Weight
Creatinine
Here's what the app looks like:
In order to simplify the process somewhat I decided to make the gender selection a dropdown menu, this has caused me some issues since I have it setup like so:
And the maths associated with the button looks like so:
function CalculateButtonPushed(app, event)
gender = app.PatientGenderDropDown.Value ;
age = app.PatientAgeEditField.Value ;
weight = app.LeanBodyWeightEditField.Value ;
serum = app.SerumCreatinineEditField.Value ;
final = (gender*(age)*weight) / (serum) ;
app.ResultEditField.Value = final ;
end
end
Running this gives the following error:
Error using
matlab.ui.control.internal.model.AbstractNumericComponent/set.Value
(line 104) 'Value' must be numeric, such as 10.
As far as I am aware, the values I input into ItemsData are numeric values. Have I missed something or is there a better way to do this?
If you put a breakpoint in the offending file on the appropriate line (by running the below code),
dbstop in uicomponents\+matlab\+ui\+control\+internal\+model\AbstractNumericComponent.m at 87
you could see the following in your workspace, after clicking the button:
There are two separate problems here, both of which can be identified by looking at the newValue validation code (appearing in AbstractNumericComponent.m):
% newValue should be a numeric value.
% NaN, Inf, empty are not accepted
validateattributes(...
newValue, ...
{'numeric'}, ...
{'scalar', 'real', 'nonempty'} ...
);
Here are the issues:
The new value is a vector of NaN.
The reason for this is in this line:
final = (gender*(age)*weight) / (serum) ;
where serum has a value of 0 - so this is the first thing you should take care of.
The new value is a vector of NaN.
This is a separate problem, since the set.Value function (which is implicitly called when you assign something into the Value field), is expecting a scalar. This happens because gender is a 1x4 char array - so it's treated as 4 separate numbers (i.e. the assumption about ItemsData being a numeric is incorrect). The simplest solution in this case would be to str2double it before use. Alternatively, store the data in another location
(such as a private attribute of the figure), making sure it's numeric.
I have seen the "dot-dot" notation (..) in different places. In the following example, 0..n tells us the domain of the decision variable (which in this case, are the entries of the array s).
int: n;
array[0..n-1] of var 0..n: s;
Another example would be in the for-loop:
constraint forall(i in 0..sequence_length)(
t[i] = sum(k in 0..sequence_length)((bool2int(t[k] == i)))
);
In fact, we can even do something like
par var 1..5: x
My feeling is that the expression m..n is generally used when we define a variable (instead of a parameter), and we want to specify the domain of the variable. But in the second case, we are not defining any variable. So when do we use m..n? What is it exactly (e.g. does it have a type?)?
m..n denotes the set of (consecutive) integers from m to n. It could also be written explicitly as {m,m+1,m+2,...,n-1,n}.
Using a set as the domain, e.g.
var 0..5: x;
could be written as
var {0,1,2,3,4,5}: x;
or (which is probably a weird style):
var {1,5,2,3,0,4}: x;
but both represents the set 0..5.
When using m..n in a forall(i in m..n) ( .... ) loop it means that i is assigned from m to n.
A set is always ordered as this little model shows:
solve satisfy;
constraint
forall(i in {0,4,3,1,2,5}) (
trace("i: \(i)\n")
)
;
The trace function prints the following, i.e. ordered:
i: 0
i: 1
i: 2
i: 3
i: 4
i: 5
I am trying to define the following function in MATLAB:
file = #(var1,var2,var3,var4) ['var1=' num2str(var1) 'var2=' num2str(var2) 'var3=' num2str(var3) 'var4=' num2str(var4)'];
However, I want the function to expand as I add more parameters; if I wanted to add the variable vark, I want the function to be:
file = #(var1,var2,var3,var4,vark) ['var1=' num2str(var1) 'var2=' num2str(var2) 'var3=' num2str(var3) 'var4=' num2str(var4) 'vark=' num2str(vark)'];
Is there a systematic way to do this?
Use fprintf with varargin for this:
f = #(varargin) fprintf('var%i= %i\n', [(1:numel(varargin));[varargin{:}]])
f(5,6,7,88)
var1= 5
var2= 6
var3= 7
var4= 88
The format I've used is: 'var%i= %i\n'. This means it will first write var then %i says it should input an integer. Thereafter it should write = followed by a new number: %i and a newline \n.
It will choose the integer in odd positions for var%i and integers in the even positions for the actual number. Since the linear index in MATLAB goes column for column we place the vector [1 2 3 4 5 ...] on top, and the content of the variable in the second row.
By the way: If you actually want it on the format you specified in the question, skip the \n:
f = #(varargin) fprintf('var%i= %i', [(1:numel(varargin));[varargin{:}]])
f(6,12,3,15,5553)
var1= 6var2= 12var3= 3var4= 15var5= 5553
Also, you can change the second %i to floats (%f), doubles (%d) etc.
If you want to use actual variable names var1, var2, var3, ... in your input then I can only say one thing: Don't! It's a horrible idea. Use cells, structs, or anything else than numbered variable names.
Just to be crytsal clear: Don't use the output from this in MATLAB in combination with eval! eval is evil. The Mathworks actually warns you about this in the official documentation!
How about calling the function as many times as the number of parameters? I wrote this considering the specific form of the character string returned by your function where k is assumed to be the index of the 'kth' variable to be entered. Array var can be the list of your numeric parameters.
file=#(var,i)[strcat('var',num2str(i),'=') num2str(var) ];
var=[2,3,4,5];
str='';
for i=1:length(var);
str=strcat(str,file(var(i),i));
end
If you want a function to accept a flexible number of input arguments, you need varargin.
In case you want the final string to be composed of the names of your variables as in your workspace, I found no way, since you need varargin and then it looks impossible. But if you are fine with having var1, var2 in your string, you can define this function and then use it:
function str = strgen(varargin)
str = '';
for ii = 1:numel(varargin);
str = sprintf('%s var%d = %s', str, ii, num2str(varargin{ii}));
end
str = str(2:end); % to remove the initial blank space
It is also compatible with strings. Testing it:
% A = pi;
% B = 'Hello!';
strgen(A, B)
ans =
var1 = 3.1416 var2 = Hello!
I am intentionally casting an array of boolean values to integers but I get this warning:
Warning: Extension: Conversion from LOGICAL(4) to INTEGER(4) at (1)
which I don't want. Can I either
(1) Turn off that warning in the Makefile?
or (more favorably)
(2) Explicitly make this cast in the code so that the compiler doesn't need to worry?
The code will looking something like this:
A = (B.eq.0)
where A and B are both size (n,1) integer arrays. B will be filled with integers ranging from 0 to 3. I need to use this type of command again later with something like A = (B.eq.1) and I need A to be an integer array where it is 1 if and only if B is the requested integer, otherwise it should be 0. These should act as boolean values (1 for .true., 0 for .false.), but I am going to be using them in matrix operations and summations where they will be converted to floating point values (when necessary) for division, so logical values are not optimal in this circumstance.
Specifically, I am looking for the fastest, most vectorized version of this command. It is easy to write a wrapper for testing elements, but I want this to be a vectorized operation for efficiency.
I am currently compiling with gfortran, but would like whatever methods are used to also work in ifort as I will be compiling with intel compilers down the road.
update:
Both merge and where work perfectly for the example in question. I will look into performance metrics on these and select the best for vectorization. I am also interested in how this will work with matrices, not just arrays, but that was not my original question so I will post a new one unless someone wants to expand their answer to how this might be adapted for matrices.
I have not found a compiler option to solve (1).
However, the type conversion is pretty simple. The documentation for gfortran specifies that .true. is mapped to 1, and false to 0.
Note that the conversion is not specified by the standard, and different values could be used by other compilers. Specifically, you should not depend on the exact values.
A simple merge will do the trick for scalars and arrays:
program test
integer :: int_sca, int_vec(3)
logical :: log_sca, log_vec(3)
log_sca = .true.
log_vec = [ .true., .false., .true. ]
int_sca = merge( 1, 0, log_sca )
int_vec = merge( 1, 0, log_vec )
print *, int_sca
print *, int_vec
end program
To address your updated question, this is trivial to do with merge:
A = merge(1, 0, B == 0)
This can be performed on scalars and arrays of arbitrary dimensions. For the latter, this can easily be vectorized be the compiler. You should consult the manual of your compiler for that, though.
The where statement in Casey's answer can be extended in the same way.
Since you convert them to floats later on, why not assign them as floats right away? Assuming that A is real, this could look like:
A = merge(1., 0., B == 0)
Another method to compliment #AlexanderVogt is to use the where construct.
program test
implicit none
integer :: int_vec(5)
logical :: log_vec(5)
log_vec = [ .true., .true., .false., .true., .false. ]
where (log_vec)
int_vec = 1
elsewhere
int_vec = 0
end where
print *, log_vec
print *, int_vec
end program test
This will assign 1 to the elements of int_vec that correspond to true elements of log_vec and 0 to the others.
The where construct will work for any rank array.
For this particular example you could avoid the logical all together:
A=1-(3-B)/3
Of course not so good for readability, but it might be ok performance-wise.
Edit, running performance tests this is 2-3 x faster than the where construct, and of course absolutely standards conforming. In fact you can throw in an absolute value and generalize as:
integer,parameter :: h=huge(1)
A=1-(h-abs(B))/h
and still beat the where loop.
I want to create a CoffeeScript range (like [4...496]) but using a length instead of an end range. This can be done with a loop like
myNum = getBigNumber()
newArray = ( n + myNum for n in [0...50] )
but I'm wondering if there is range-related shortcut that I'm missing. Is there something like
[getBigNumber()...].length(50) available in CoffeeScript?
You can just do
range = [myNum...myNum + 50]
Edit: As mu points out in the comments, CoffeeScript will add some complexity whether you use the snippet above or the original code. If performance is an issue, it might be better to drop down to plain JS for the loop (using backticks in the CoffeeScript code).
Assuming you want an ascending (i.e. low to high) range, you can do:
myNum = getBigNumber()
length = 50
range = new Array length
i = 0
`for(; i < length ; i++) { range[i] = i + myNum }` # raw, escaped JS
It's a lot faster than CoffeeScript's way of doing things, but note that CoffeeScript's range syntax also supports creating descending ranges by just flipping the boundary values. So CoffeeScript is (as always) easier on the eyes and simpler to work with, but raw JS is 3.5x faster in my test.