I am trying to replicate this formula:
I have gathered all variables in my workspace. However estimating vec(Theta') does not seem to work and so I am a little bit stuck.
Theta = A*B-C;
vTheta = vec(Theta');
A, B and C are defined. The problem is that MATLAB does not seem to know the function vec to do what I would like to do with Theta as in the formula.
How to fix this?
I don't know where you got that equation from, but vec is a function in R, maybe it's related to that? If you want to convert a matrix Theta into a vector, do
Theta(:)
Edit: If you need to transpose the matrix first, MATLAB might not let you do Theta'(:). Instead do it in two steps:
tmp = Theta'; tmp(:)
As written above the Colon Operator is the way vectorize defined variable.
Yet, sometime we want to vectorize a sub set of a variable.
Let's say we have a matrix - mA and we'd like to vectorize a sub section of it - mA(2:3, 4:7).
One way is to define a new variable and vectorize it:
vA = mA(2:3, 4:7);
vA = vA(:);
Yet, what if we only wanted to use this inside another expression and only once?
Could we escape the need to generate explicit variable?
Well, unfortunately MATLAB doesn't have the view() functionality like in Julia.
Yet if you want to avoid explicitly naming new variable (I'm not sure if MATLAB's JIT Engine can also void the memory allocation as Julia) you can do:
reshape(mA(2:3, 4:7), [], 1)
This will always yield a column vector.
You can also use:
reshape(mA(2:3, 4:7), 1, [])
To generate row vector.
For instance you can do:
reshape(mA(2:3, 4:7), 1, []) * reshape(mA(2:3, 4:7), [], 1, )
This will be the sum of squared values of those elements.
Related
I'm trying to vectorize one function in Matlab, but I have a problem with assigning values.
function [val] = clenshaw(coeffs,x)
b=zeros(1,length(coeffs)+2);
for k=length(coeffs):-1:2
b(k)=coeffs(k)-b(k+2)+2*b(k+1).*x;
end
val=coeffs(1)-b(3)+b(2).*x;
The purpose of this function is to use Clenshaw's algorithm to compute a value of one polynomial with coefficients "coeffs" at point x.
It work fine when x is a single value, but I'd like it to work with vector of arguments too.
When I try to pass a vector I get an error:
Unable to perform assignment because the left
and right sides have a different number of
elements.
Error in clenshaw (line 7)
b(k)=coeffs(k)-b(k+2)+2*b(k+1).*x;
I understand that there is a problem, because I'm trying to assign vector to a scalar variable b(k).
I tried making b a matrix instead of a vector, however I still cannot get the return output I'd like to have which would be a vector of values of this function at points from vector x.
Thank you for helping and sorry if something isn't entirely clear, because English is not my native language.
The vectorized version of your function looks like this:
function [val] = clenshaw(coeffs,x)
b=zeros(length(x),length(coeffs)+2);
for k=length(coeffs):-1:2
b(:,k)=coeffs(k)-b(:,k+2)+2*b(:,k+1).*transpose(x);
end
val=coeffs(1)-b(:,3)+b(:,2).*transpose(x);
end
b needs to be a matrix. In your loop, you have to perform every operation per row of b. So you need to write b(:,k) instead of b(k). Since b(:,k) is a vector and not a scalar, you also have to be careful with the dimensions when using the .* operator. To get the correct results, you need to transpose x. The same goes for the calculation of val. If you don't like the transposition, just swap the rows and cols of b and you get this:
function [val] = clenshaw(coeffs,x)
b=zeros(length(coeffs)+2, length(x));
for k=length(coeffs):-1:2
b(k,:)=coeffs(k)-b(k+2,:)+2*b(k+1,:).*x;
end
val=coeffs(1)-b(3,:)+b(2,:).*x;
end
However, the first version returns a column vector and the second a row vector. So you might need to transpose the result if the vector type is important.
Good evening everyone,
I want to create a function
f(x) = [f1(x), f2(x), ... , fn(x)]
in MatLab, with an arbitrary form and number for the fi. In my current case they are meant to be basis elements for a finite-dimensional function space, so for example a number of multi variable polynomials. I want to able to be able to set form (e.g. hermite/lagrange polynomials, ...) and number via arguments in some sort of "function creating" function, so I would like to solve this for arbitrary functions fi.
Assume for now that the fi are fi:R^d -> R, so vector input to scalar output. This means the result from f should be a n-dim vector containing the output of all n functions. The number of functions n could be fairly large, as there is permutation involved. I also need to evaluate the resulting function very often, so I hope to do it as efficiently as possible.
Currently I see two ways to do this:
Create a cell with each fi using a loop, using something like
funcell{i}=matlabFunction(createpoly(degree, x),'vars',{x})
and one of the functions from the symbolic toolbox and a symbolic x (vector). It is then possible to create the desired function with cellfun, e.g.
f=#(x) cellfun(#(v) v(x), funcell)
This is relatively short, easy and what can be found when doing searches. It even allows extension to vector output using 'UniformOutput',false and cell2mat. On the downside it is very inefficient, first during creation because of matlabFunction and then during evaluation because of cellfun.
The other idea I had is to create a string and use eval. One way to do this would be
stringcell{i}=[char(createpoly(degree, x)),';']
and then use strjoin. In theory this should yield an efficient function. There are two problems however. The first is the use of eval (mostly on principle), the second is inserting the correct arguments. The symbolic toolbox does not allow symbols of the form x(i), so the resulting string will not contain them either. The only remedy I have so far is some sort of string replacement on the xi that are allowed, but this is also far from elegant.
So I do have ways to do what I need right now, but I would appreciate any ideas for a better solution.
From my understanding of the problem, you could do the straightforward:
Initialization step:
my_fns = cell(n, 1); %where n is number of functions
my_fns{1} = #f1; % Assuming f1 is defined in f1.m etc...
my_fns{2} = #f2;
Evaluation at x:
z = zeros(n, 1);
for i=1:n,
z(i) = my_fns{i}(x)
end
For example if you put it in my_evaluate.m:
function z = my_evaluate(my_fns, x)
z = zeros(n, 1);
for i=1:n,
z(i) = my_fns{i}(x)
end
How might this possibly be sped up?
Depends on if you have special structure than can be exploited.
Are there calculations common to some subset of f1 through fn that need not be repeated with each function call? Eg. if the common calculation step is costly, you could do y = f_helper(x) and z(i) = fi(x, y).
Can the functions f1...fn be vector / matrix friendly, allowing evaluation of multiple points with each function call?
The big issue is how fast your function calls f1 through fn are, not how you collect the results from those calls in a vector.
I have recently been tasked with using a first derivative filter on an image of myself. The instructor said that I should first fix the value of y and preform f(x+1) - f(x) on the rows and then fix the new "X" values and preform f(y+1)-f(y) on the columns.
Note: I have been asked to do this task manually, not using filter2() or any other programmed function, so please do not suggest that I use filter2() or similar. Thanks!
I tried calling up all the pixels and subtracting each successive one by doing
fid = fopen('image.raw')
myimage = fread(fid,[512 683], '*int8')
fclose(fid)
imsz = size(myimage)
x = imsz(1)
for I = 1:512
for J = 1:683
X(I) - X(I-1) = XX
But it doesnt seem to work, and I dont quite understand why. If you could help me, or point me in the right direction, I would be very appreciative.
First of all, your code is syntatically incorrect:
There is no end statement to any of your loops, and besides, you don't even need loops here.
You seem to read your image into the variable myimage, but you're using an undefined variable X when attempting to calculate the derivative.
The order of your assignment statements is reversed. The variable you wish to assign to should be written in the left hand part of the assignement.
I strongly suggest that you read online tutorials and get yourself familiar with MATLAB basics before taking on more complicated tasks.
As to your specific problem:
MATLAB encourages vectorized operations, i.e operations on entire arrays (vectors or matrices) at once. To subtract adjacent values in an array, what you're basically doing is subtracting two arrays, shifted by one element with respect to each other. For one dimensional arrays, that would translate in MATLAB to:
a(2:end) - a(1:end-1)
where a is your array. The end keyword specifies the last index in the array.
To compute the derivative of an image (a 2-D matrix), you need to decide along which axis you want to perform that operation. To approximate the derivate along the y-axis, do this:
X(2:end, :) - X(1:end-1, :)
You can verify that this gives you the same result as diff(X, 1) (or simply diff(X)). To compute the approximate derivative along the x-axis, which is equivalent to diff(X, 2), do this:
X(:, 2:end) - X(:, 1:end-1)
The colon (:) is the same as writing 1:end as the array subscript for the corresponding dimension.
If your filtered image is div then
for Y = 1:682
for X = 1:511
div(X, Y) = myimage(X + 1, Y + 1) - myimage(X,Y);
end
end
Remember the last row and the last column are not filtered!
i have two problems in mathematica and want to do them in matlab:
measure := RandomReal[] - 0.5
m = 10000;
data = Table[measure, {m}];
fig1 = ListPlot[data, PlotStyle -> {PointSize[0.015]}]
Histogram[data]
matlab:
measure =# (m) rand(1,m)-0.5
m=10000;
for i=1:m
data(:,i)=measure(:,i);
end
figure(1)
plot(data,'b.','MarkerSize',0.015)
figure(2)
hist(data)
And it gives me :
??? The following error occurred
converting from function_handle to
double: Error using ==> double
If i do :
measure =rand()-0.5
m=10000;
data=rand(1,m)-0.5
then, i get the right results in plot1 but in plot 2 the y=axis is wrong.
Also, if i have this in mathematica :
steps[m_] := Table[2 RandomInteger[] - 1, {m}]
steps[20]
Walk1D[n_] := FoldList[Plus, 0, steps[n]]
LastPoint1D[n_] := Fold[Plus, 0, steps[n]]
ListPlot[Walk1D[10^4]]
I did this :
steps = # (m) 2*randint(1,m,2)-1;
steps(20)
Walk1D =# (n) cumsum(0:steps(n)) --> this is ok i think
LastPointold1D= # (n) cumsum(0:steps(n))
LastPoint1D= # (n) LastPointold1D(end)-->but here i now i must take the last "folding"
Walk1D(10)
LastPoint1D(10000)
plot(Walk1D(10000),'b')
and i get an empty matrix and no plot..
Since #Itamar essentially answered your first question, here is a comment on the second one. You did it almost right. You need to define
Walk1D = # (n) cumsum(steps(n));
since cumsum is a direct analog of FoldList[Plus,0,your-list]. Then, the plot in your code works fine. Also, notice that, either in your Mathematica or Matlab code, it is not necessary to define LastPoint1D separately - in both cases, it is the last point of your generated list (vector) steps.
EDIT:
Expanding a bit on LastPoint1D: my guess is that you want it to be a last point of the walk computed by Walk1D. Therefore, it would IMO make sense to just make it a function of a generated walk (vector), that returns its last point. For example:
lastPoint1D = #(walk) (walk(end));
Then, you use it as:
walk = Walk1D(10000);
lastPoint1D(walk)
HTH
You have a few errors/mistakes translating your code to Matlab:
If I am not wrong, the line data = Table[measure, {m}]; creates m copies of measure, which in your case will create a random vector of size (1,m). If that is true, in Matlab it would simply be data = measure(m);
The function you define gets a single argument m, therefor it makes no sense using a matrix notation (the :) when calling it.
Just as a side-note, if you insert data into a matrix inside a for loop, it will run much faster if you allocate the matrix in advance, otherwise Matlab will re-allocate memory to resize the matrix in each iteration. You do this by data = zeros(1,m);.
What do you mean by "in plot 2 the y=axis is wrong"? What do you expect it to be?
EDIT
Regarding your 2nd question, it would be easier to help you if you describe in words what you want to achieve, rather than trying to read your (error producing) code. One thing which is clearly wrong is using expression like 0:steps(n), since you use m:n with two scalars m and n to produce a vector, but steps(n) produces a vector, not a scalar. You probably get an empty matrix since the first value in the vector returned by steps(n) might be -1, and 0:-1 produces an empty vector.
I want to apply a function to all columns in a matrix with MATLAB. For example, I'd like to be able to call smooth on every column of a matrix, instead of having smooth treat the matrix as a vector (which is the default behaviour if you call smooth(matrix)).
I'm sure there must be a more idiomatic way to do this, but I can't find it, so I've defined a map_column function:
function result = map_column(m, func)
result = m;
for col = 1:size(m,2)
result(:,col) = func(m(:,col));
end
end
which I can call with:
smoothed = map_column(input, #(c) (smooth(c, 9)));
Is there anything wrong with this code? How could I improve it?
The MATLAB "for" statement actually loops over the columns of whatever's supplied - normally, this just results in a sequence of scalars since the vector passed into for (as in your example above) is a row vector. This means that you can rewrite the above code like this:
function result = map_column(m, func)
result = [];
for m_col = m
result = horzcat(result, func(m_col));
end
If func does not return a column vector, then you can add something like
f = func(m_col);
result = horzcat(result, f(:));
to force it into a column.
Your solution is fine.
Note that horizcat exacts a substantial performance penalty for large matrices. It makes the code be O(N^2) instead of O(N). For a 100x10,000 matrix, your implementation takes 2.6s on my machine, the horizcat one takes 64.5s. For a 100x5000 matrix, the horizcat implementation takes 15.7s.
If you wanted, you could generalize your function a little and make it be able to iterate over the final dimension or even over arbitrary dimensions (not just columns).
Maybe you could always transform the matrix with the ' operator and then transform the result back.
smoothed = smooth(input', 9)';
That at least works with the fft function.
A way to cause an implicit loop across the columns of a matrix is to use cellfun. That is, you must first convert the matrix to a cell array, each cell will hold one column. Then call cellfun. For example:
A = randn(10,5);
See that here I've computed the standard deviation for each column.
cellfun(#std,mat2cell(A,size(A,1),ones(1,size(A,2))))
ans =
0.78681 1.1473 0.89789 0.66635 1.3482
Of course, many functions in MATLAB are already set up to work on rows or columns of an array as the user indicates. This is true of std of course, but this is a convenient way to test that cellfun worked successfully.
std(A,[],1)
ans =
0.78681 1.1473 0.89789 0.66635 1.3482
Don't forget to preallocate the result matrix if you are dealing with large matrices. Otherwise your CPU will spend lots of cycles repeatedly re-allocating the matrix every time it adds a new row/column.
If this is a common use-case for your function, it would perhaps be a good idea to make the function iterate through the columns automatically if the input is not a vector.
This doesn't exactly solve your problem but it would simplify the functions' usage. In that case, the output should be a matrix, too.
You can also transform the matrix to one long column by using m(:,:) = m(:). However, it depends on your function if this would make sense.