Hi, I am trying to write a function as per the question. I have tried to create four sub-matrices which are the reverse of each other and then multiply to give the products demanded by the question. My attempt:
function T = custom_blocksT(n,m)
T(1:end,end-1:1);
T(1:end,end:-1:1)*2;
T(1:end,end:-1:1)*3;
T(1:end,end:-1:1)*4;
What I'm unsure of is
(i) What do the the indivual sub-matrices(T(1:end,end-1:1);)need to be equal to? I was thinking of(1:3)?
(ii) I tried to create a generic sub-matrix which can take any size matrix input using end was this correct or can't you do that? I keep getting this error
Undefined function or variable 'T'.
Error in custom_blocksT (line 2)
T(1:end,end-1:1);
I have searched the Matlab documentation and stacked overflow, but the problem is I'm not quite sure what I'm supposed to be looking for in terms of solving this question.
If someone could help me I would be very thankfull.
There are many problems with your function:
function T = custom_blocksT(n,m)
T(1:end,end-1:1);
T(1:end,end:-1:1)*2;
T(1:end,end:-1:1)*3;
T(1:end,end:-1:1)*4;
end
This is an extremely basic question, I highly recommend you find and work through some very basic MATLAB tutorials before continuing, even before reading this answer to be honest.
That said here is what you should have done and a bit of what you did wrong:
First, you are getting the error that T dos not exist because it doesn't. The only variables that exist in your function are those that you create in the function or those that are passed in as parameters. You should have passed in T as a parameter, but instead you passed in n and m which you don't use.
In the question, they call the function using the example:
custom_blocks([1:3;3:-1:1])
So you can see that they are only passing in one variable, your function takes two and that's already a problem. The one variable is the matrix, not it's dimensions. And the matrix they are passing in is [1:3;3:-1:1] which if you type in the command line you will see gives you
[1 2 3
3 2 1]
So for your first line to take in one argument which is that matrix it should rather read
function TOut = custom_blocks(TIn)
Now what they are asking you to do is create a matrix, TOut, which is just different multiples of TIn concatenated.
What you've done with say TIn(1:end,end-1:1)*2; is just ask MATLAB to multiple TIn by 2 (that's the only correct bit) but then do nothing with it. Furthermore, indexing the rows by 1:end will do what you want (i.e. request all the rows) but in MATLAB you can actually just use : for that. Indexing the columns by end-1:1 will also call all the columns, but in reverse order. So in effect you are flipping your matrix left-to-right which I'm sure is not what you wanted. So you could have just written TIn(:,:) but since that's just requesting the entire matrix unchanged you could actually just write TIn.
So now to multiply and concatenate (i.e. stick together) you do this
TOut = [TIn, TIn*2; TIn*3, TIn*4]
The [] is like a concatenate operation where , is for horizontal and ; is for vertical concatenation.
Putting it all together:
function TOut = custom_blocks(TIn)
TOut = [TIn, TIn*2; TIn*3, TIn*4];
end
Related
This question already has answers here:
Subscript indices must either be real positive integers or logicals, generic solution
(3 answers)
Closed 3 years ago.
I have just recently started using MATLAB as it's pretty good for machine learning and the like.
Currently, I am working on some type of classification which is pretty long-winded and complicated if I tried to explain everything I am trying to accomplish therefore I will just state the exact code giving me problems.
So, I am given a 1010 x 1764 single type matrix by some function. say the matrix is called train_examples_2_2 as you can see on the right-hand side of the screenshot below.
As you can also see from the screenshot above (on the right-hand side), the calls to mean and std:
mean = mean(train_examples_2_2)
std = std(train_examples_2_2)
Yield the correct results.
However, when I run the same code several times sometimes I get an error on the line mean = mean(train_examples_2_2) stating:
Array indices must be positive integers or logical values.
The exact code I am concerned with is:
mean = mean(train_examples_2_2) % <----- error appears here
std = std(train_examples_2_2)
for i=1:size(train_examples_2_2,1)
train_examples_2_2(i,:) = train_examples_2_2(i,:) - mean;
train_examples_2_2(i,:) = train_examples_2_2(i,:) ./ std;
end
% end of standardisation process
where train_examples_2_2 is provided by some function that I did not create nor can modify.
According to the MATLAB documentation:
If A is a matrix, then mean(A) returns a row vector containing the
mean of each column.
which is what I get the first time I run the code upon opening Matlab but after that, it yields the aforementioned error.
I am using MATLAB R2018b.
I'm I making a simple mistake or could this possibly be a bug?
Thanks for taking the time to help out.
unlike let's say python you shouldn't/can't/mussn't re-define function names or default variables.
mean = mean(train_examples_2_2) % <----- error appears here
matlab doesn't distinguish between the callable mean() function and the variable ```mean``. especially confusing since indexing and calling sth is done by using round brackets.
So....?
call your variable sth. other than mean. mean_ will already do the trick.
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.
In my Matlab code I have an object-array of 'masses' which are an object of a class which describes the mass, speed, accerleration etc.
To speed up the simulation I want to reduce the usage of for-loops with using more vector operations. One of the operations is to get the distance of the current mass to all others.
I would like to solve it like that:
%position is a vector with x and y values e.g. [1 2]
%repeat the current mass as many times as there are other masses to compare with
currentMassPosition = repmat(obj(currentMass).position, length(obj), 2);
distanceCurrentMassToOthersArray = obj(:).position - currentMassPosition;
I cannot use the colon-indexing operation on the object array. Currently i use a for-loop where I iterate through every single object. Do you have any tips to optimise that without using a for loop?
I hope my question was clear enough, otherwise I will optimise it ;).
I used this code to reproduce your problem. For future questions please try to include such examples into your question:
classdef A
properties
position
end
methods
function obj=A()
obj.position=1;
end
end
end
.
%example code to reproduce
x(1)=A
x(2)=A
x(3)=A
%line which causes the problem
x(:).position-3
To understand why this is not working, take a look at the output of x(:).position, just type it into the console. You get multiple ans values, indicating a comma separated list of multiple values. If you use [x(:).position] instead, you get an array of doubles. The correct code is:
[x(:).position]-3
I have a function that takes upto seven arguments and returns a row vector. The first three arguments are vectors (column, column, row) and the remaining four are optional scalars.
I want to use bsxfun() to apply the function to a vector of its last argument. Below is my attempt to do that.
o = #(m,pulse,N0,samples_per_pulse,sample_select,filter,channel_cutoff) ELE452Functions.EvaluateBER(m,pulse,N0,samples_per_pulse,sample_select,filter,channel_cutoff);
oo = #(m,pulse,N0,samples_per_pulse,sample_select,filter,channel_cutoff) bsxfun(#(N0,channel_cutoff) o(m,pulse,N0,samples_per_pulse,sample_select,filter,channel_cutoff), N0' , channel_cutoff);
when I try to call the function with a vector, oo(m,pulse,N0,1,1,1,[0.5 0.2]); for example, I get this error:
Error using bsxfun
Invalid output dimensions.
I am not experienced in using bsxfun and I tried to follow the documentation.
Update:
May be this is a clearer way to ask my question:
I want to use bsxfun to rewrite (improve) the code below with out a loop.
for i=1:length(channel_normalized_cuttoffs)
BER_LPchannel(i,:) = ELE452Functions.EvaluateBER(m,pulse,N0,1,1,1,channel_normalized_cuttoffs(i));
end
The idea behind bsxfun is to evaluate a certain function for all possible combinations of two elements (b in bsxfun stands for binary), each coming from one of the arrays. (NB: This is valid if you use it with a row and a column vector. But bsxfun can also do more.)
What you want to achieve is simply: For all entries of a single array, evaluate a function.
So bsxfun is just not the correct choice here.
You could use arrayfun instead, but this still may not perform a lot better than your original for loop, as it looks like the Matlab JIT Compiler would be able to optimize most of it, considering it's simplicity.
As I don't have the code of your function, I'm not able to test it, but your solution might look a lot like this:
evalBER = #(CNcutoffi) ELE452Functions.EvaluateBER(m,pulse,N0,1,1,1,CNcutoffi);
BER_LPchannel = arrayfun(evalBER, channel_normalized_cuttoffs, 'UniformOutput', false)
Keeping simple, take a matrix of ones i.e.
U_iso = ones(72,37)
and some parameters
ThDeg = 0:5:180;
dtheta = 5*pi/180;
dphi = 5*pi/180;
Th = ThDeg*pi/180;
Now the code is
omega_iso = 0;
for i = 1:72
for j=1:37
omega_iso = omega_iso + U_iso(i,j)*sin(Th(j))*dphi*dtheta;
end
end
and
D_iso = (4 * pi)/omega_iso
This code is fine. It take a matrix with dimension 72*37. The loop is an approximation of the integral which is further divided by 4pi to get ONE value of directivity of antenna.
Now this code gives one value which will be around 1.002.
My problem is I dont need 1 value. I need a 72*37 matrix as my answer where the above integral approximation is implemented on each cell of the 72 * 37 matrix. and thus the Directviity 'D' also results in a matrix of same size with each cell giving the same value.
So all we have to do is instead of getting 1 value, we need value at each cell.
Can anyone please help.
You talk about creating a result that is a function essentially of the elements of U. However, in no place is that code dependent on the elements of U. Look carefully at what you have written. While you do use the variable U_iso, never is any element of U employed anywhere in that code as you have written it.
So while you talk about defining this for a matrix U, that definition is meaningless. So far, it appears that a call to repmat at the very end would create a matrix of the desired size, and clearly that is not what you are looking for.
Perhaps you tried to make the problem simple for ease of explanation. But what you did was to over-simplify, not leaving us with something that even made any sense. Please explain your problem more clearly and show code that is consistent with your explanation, for a better answer than I can provide so far.
(Note: One option MIGHT be to use arrayfun. Or the answer to this question might be more trivial, using simple vectorized operations. I cannot know at this point.)
EDIT:
Your question is still unanswerable. This loop creates a single scalar result, essentially summing over the entire array. You don't say what you mean for the integral to be computed for each element of U_iso, since you are already summing over the entire array. Please learn to be accurate in your questions, otherwise we are just guessing as to what you mean.
My best guess at the moment is that you might wish to compute a cumulative integral, in two dimensions. cumtrapz can help you there, IF that is your goal. But I'm not sure it is your goal, since your explanation is so incomplete.
You say that you wish to get the same value in each cell of the result. If that is what you wish, then a call to repmat at the end will do what you wish.