I have a few simple equations that I want to pipe through matlab. But I would like to get exact answers, because these values are expected to be used and simplified later on.
Right now Matlab shows sqrt(2.0) as 1.1414 instead of something like 2^(1/2) as I would like.
I tried turning on format rat but this is dangerous becasue it shows sqrt(2) as 1393/985 without any sort of warning.
There is "symbolic math" but it seems like overkill.
All I want is that 2 + sqrt(50) would return something like 2 + 5 * (2)^(1/2) and even my 5 years old CASIO calculator can do this!
So what can I do to get 2 + sqrt(50) evaluate to 2 + 5 * (2)^(1/2) in matlab?
As per #Oleg's comment use symbolic math.
x=sym('2')+sqrt(sym('50'))
x =
5*2^(1/2) + 2
The average time on ten thousand iterations through this expression is 1.2 milliseconds, whilst the time for the numeric expression (x=2+sqrt(50)) is only 0.4 micro seconds, i.e. a factor of ten thousand faster.
I did pre-run the symbolic expression 50 times, because, as Oleg points out in his second comment the symbolic engine needs some warming up. The first run through your expression took my pc almost 2 seconds.
I would therefore recommend using numeric equations due to the huge difference in calculation time. Only use symbolic expressions when you are forced to (e.g. simplifying expressions for a paper) and then use a symbolic computation engine like Maple or Wolfram Alpha.
Matlab main engine is not symbolic but numeric.
Symbolic toolbox. Create expression in x and subs x = 50
syms x
f = 2+sqrt(x)
subs(f,50)
ans =
50^(1/2) + 2
Related
Why do I get different results when using the same code running in different version of MATLAB (2016 vs 2021) for sum(b.*x1) where b is single and x1 is double. How to avoid such error between MATLAB version?
MATLAB v.2021:
sum(b.*x1)
ans =
single
-0.0013286
MATLAB 2016
sum(b.*x1)
ans =
single
-0.0013283
In R2017b, they changed the behavior of sum for single-precision floats, and in R2020b they made the same changes for other data types too.
The change speeds up the computation, and improves accuracy by reducing the rounding errors. Simply put, previously the algorithm would just run through the array in sequence, adding up the values. The new behavior computes the sum over smaller portions of the array, and then adds up those results. This is more precise because the running total can become a very large number, and adding smaller numbers to it causes more rounding in those smaller numbers. The speed improvement comes from loop unrolling: the loop now steps over, say, 8 values at the time, and in the loop body, 8 running totals are computed (they don’t specify the number they use, the 8 here is an example).
Thus, your newer result is a better approximation to the sum of your array than the old one.
For more details (a better explanation of the new algorithm and the reason for the change), see this blog post.
Regarding how to avoid the difference: you could implement your own sum function, and use that instead of the builtin one. I would suggest writing it as a MEX-file for efficiency. However, do make sure you match the newer behavior of the builtin sum, as that is the better approximation.
Here is an example of the problem. Let's create an array with N+1 elements, where the first one has a value of N and the rest have a value of 1.
N = 1e8;
a = ones(N+1,1,'single');
a(1) = N;
The sum over this array is expected to be 2*N. If we set N large enough w.r.t. the data type, I see this in R2017a (before the change):
>> sum(a)
ans =
single
150331648
And I see this in R2018b (after the change for single-precision sum):
>> sum(a)
ans =
single
199998976
Both implementations make rounding errors here, but one is obviously much, much closer to the expected result (2e8, or 200000000).
I'm running on R2012a version. I tried to write a function that imitates randi using rand (only rand), producing the same output when the same arguments are passed and the same seed is provided. I tried something with the command window and here's what I got:
>> s = rng;
>> R1 = randi([2 20], 3, 5)
R1 =
2 16 11 15 14
10 17 10 16 14
9 5 14 7 5
>> rng(s)
>> R2 = 2+18*rand(3, 5)
R2 =
2.6200 15.7793 10.8158 14.7686 14.2346
9.8974 16.3136 10.0206 15.5844 13.7918
8.8681 5.3637 13.6336 6.9685 4.9270
>>
A swift comparison led me to believe that there's some link between the two: each integer in R1 is within plus or minus unity from the corresponding element in R2. Nonetheless, I failed to go any further: I checked for ceiling, flooring, fixing and rounding but neither of them seems to work.
randi([2 20]) generates integers between 2 and 20, both included. That is, it can generate 19 different values, not 18.
19 * rand
generates values uniformly distributed within the half-open interval [0,19), flooring it gives you uniformly distributed integers in the range [0,18].
Thus, in general,
x = randi([a,b]]);
y = rand * (b-a+1) + a;
should yield numbers with the same property. From OP’s experiment it looks like they might generate the same sequence, but this cannot be guaranteed, and it likely doesn't.
Why? It is likely that randi is not implemented in terms of rand, but it’s underlying random generator, which produces integers. To go from a random integer x in a large range ([0,N-1]) to one in a small range ([0,n-1]), you would normally use the modulo operator (mod(x,N)) or a floored division like above, but remove a small subset of the values that skew the distribution. This other anser gives a detailed explanation. I like to think of it in terms of examples:
Say random values are in the range [0,2^16-1] (N=2^16) and you want values in the range [0,18] (n=19). mod(19,2^16)=5. That is, the largest 5 values that can be generated by the random number generator are mapped to the lowest 5 values of the output range (assuming the modulo method), leaving those numbers slightly more likely to be generated than the rest of the output range. These lowest 5 values have a chance floor(N/n)+1, whereas the rest has a chance floor(N/n). This is bad. [Using floored division instead of modulo yields a different distribution of the unevenness, but the end result is the same: some numbers are slightly more likely than others.]
To solve this issue, a correct implementation does as follows: if you get one of the values in the random generator that are floor(N/n)*n or higher, you need to throw it away and try again. This is a very small chance, of course, with a typical random number generator that uses N=2^64.
Though we don't know how randi is implemented, we can be fairly certain that it follows the correct implementation described here. So your sequence based on rand might be right for millions of numbers, but then start deviating.
Interestingly enough, Octave's randi is implemented as an M-file, so we can see how they do it. And it turns out it uses the wrong algorithm shown at the top of this answer, based on rand:
ri = imin + floor ( (imax-imin+1)*rand (varargin{:}) );
Thus, Octave's randi is biased!
I am trying to calculate some integrals that use very high power exponents. An example equation is:
(-exp(-(x+sqrt(p)).^2)+exp(-(x-sqrt(p)).^2)).^2 ...
./( exp(-(x+sqrt(p)).^2)+exp(-(x-sqrt(p)).^2)) ...
/ (2*sqrt(pi))
where p is constant (1000 being a typical value), and I need the integral for x=[-inf,inf]. If I use the integral function for numeric integration I get NaN as a result. I can avoid that if I set the limits of the integration to something like [-20,20] and a low p (<100), but ideally I need the full range.
I have also tried setting syms x and using int and vpa, but in this case vpa returns:
1.0 - 1.0*numeric::int((1125899906842624*(exp(-(x - 10*10^(1/2))^2) - exp(-(x + 10*10^(1/2))^2))^2)/(3991211251234741*(exp(-(x - 10*10^(1/2))^2) + exp(-(x + 10*10^(1/2))^2)))
without calculating a value. Again, if I set the limits of the integration to lower values I do get a result (also for low p), but I know that the result that I get is wrong – e.g., if x=[-100,100] and p=1000, the result is >1, which should be wrong as the equation should be asymptotic to 1 (or alternatively the codomain should be [0,1) ).
Am I doing something wrong with vpa or is there another way to calculate high precision values for my integrals?
First, you're doing something that makes solving symbolic problems more difficult and less accurate. The variable pi is a floating-point value, not an exact symbolic representation of the fundamental constant. In Matlab symbolic math code, you should always use sym('pi'). You should do the same for any other special numeric values, e.g., sqrt(sym('2')) and exp(sym('1')), you use or they will get converted to an approximate rational fraction by default (the source of strange large number you see in the code in your question). For further details, I recommend that you read through the documentation for the sym function.
Applying the above, here's a runnable example:
syms x;
p = 1000;
f = (-exp(-(x+sqrt(p)).^2)+exp(-(x-sqrt(p)).^2)).^2./(exp(-(x+sqrt(p)).^2)...
+exp(-(x-sqrt(p)).^2))/(2*sqrt(sym('pi')));
Now vpa(int(f,x,-100,100)) and vpa(int(f,x,-1e3,1e3)) return exactly 1.0 (to 32 digits of precision, see below).
Unfortunately, vpa(int(f,x,-Inf,Inf)), does not return an answer, but a call to the underlying MuPAD function numeric::int. As I explain in this answer, this is what can happen when int cannot obtain a result. Normally, it should try to evaluate the the integral numerically, but your function appears to be ill-defined at ±∞, resulting in divide by zero issues that the variable precision quadrature methods can't handle well. You can evaluate the integral at wider bounds by increasing the variable precision using the digits function (just remember to set digits back to the default of 32 when done). Setting digits(128) allowed me to evaluate vpa(int(f,x,-1e4,1e4)). You can also more efficiently evaluate your integral over a wider range via 2*vpa(int(f,x,0,1e4)) at lower effective digits settings.
If your goal is to see exactly how much less than one p = 1000 corresponds to, you can use something like vpa(1-2*int(f,x,0,1e4)). At digits(128), this returns
0.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000086457415971094118490438229708839420392402555445545519907545198837816908450303280444030703989603548138797600750757834260181259102
Applying double to this shows that it is approximately 8.6e-89.
I have two vectors in Matlab, z and beta. Vector z is a 1x17:
1 0.430742139435890 0.257372971229541 0.0965909090909091 0.694329541928697 0 0.394960106863064 0 0.100000000000000 1 0.264704325268675 0.387774594078319 0.269207605609567 0.472226643323253 0.750000000000000 0.513121013402805 0.697062571025173
... and beta is a 17x1:
6.55269487769363e+26
0
0
-56.3867588816768
-2.21310778926413
0
57.0726052009847
0
3.47223691057151e+27
-1.00249317882651e+27
3.38202232046686
1.16425987969027
0.229504956512063
-0.314243264212449
-0.257394312588330
0.498644243389556
-0.852510642195370
I'm dealing with some singularity issues, and I noticed that if I want to compute the dot product of z*beta, I potentially get 2 different solutions. If I use the * command, z*beta = 18.5045. If I write a loop to compute the dot product (below), I get a solution of 0.7287.
summation=0;
for i=1:17
addition=z(1,i)*beta(i);
summation=summation+addition;
end
Any idea what's going on here?
Here's a link to the data: https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/16594701/data.zip
The problem here is that addition of floating point numbers is not associative. When summing a sequence of numbers of comparable magnitude, this is not usually a problem. However, in your sequence, most numbers are around 1 or 10, while several entries have magnitude 10^26 or 10^27. Numerical problems are almost unavoidable in this situation.
The wikipedia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Floating_point#Accuracy_problems shows a worked example where (a + b) + c is not equal to a + (b + c), i.e. demonstrating that the order in which you add up floating point numbers does matter.
I would guess that this is a homework assignment designed to illustrate these exact issues. If not, I'd ask what the data represents to suss out the appropriate approach. It would probably be much more productive to find out why such large numbers are being produced in the first place than trying to make sense of the dot product that includes them.
I need to compute sin(4^x) with x > 1000 in Matlab, with is basically sin(4^x mod 2π) Since the values inside the sin function become very large, Matlab returns infinite for 4^1000. How can I efficiently compute this?
I prefer to avoid large data types.
I think that a transformation to something like sin(n*π+z) could be a possible solution.
You need to be careful, as there will be a loss of precision. The sin function is periodic, but 4^1000 is a big number. So effectively, we subtract off a multiple of 2*pi to move the argument into the interval [0,2*pi).
4^1000 is roughly 1e600, a really big number. So I'll do my computations using my high precision floating point tool in MATLAB. (In fact, one of my explicit goals when I wrote HPF was to be able to compute a number like sin(1e400). Even if you are doing something for the fun of it, doing it right still makes sense.) In this case, since I know that the power we are interested in is roughly 1e600, then I'll do my computations in more than 600 digits of precision, expecting that I'll lose 600 digits by the subtractive cancellation. This is a massive subtractive cancellation issue. Think about it. That modulus operation is effectively a difference between two numbers that will be identical for the first 600 digits or so!
X = hpf(4,1000);
X^1000
ans =
114813069527425452423283320117768198402231770208869520047764273682576626139237031385665948631650626991844596463898746277344711896086305533142593135616665318539129989145312280000688779148240044871428926990063486244781615463646388363947317026040466353970904996558162398808944629605623311649536164221970332681344168908984458505602379484807914058900934776500429002716706625830522008132236281291761267883317206598995396418127021779858404042159853183251540889433902091920554957783589672039160081957216630582755380425583726015528348786419432054508915275783882625175435528800822842770817965453762184851149029376
What is the nearest multiple of 2*pi that does not exceed this number? We can get that by a simple operation.
twopi = 2*hpf('pi',1000);
twopi*floor(X^1000/twopi)
ans = 114813069527425452423283320117768198402231770208869520047764273682576626139237031385665948631650626991844596463898746277344711896086305533142593135616665318539129989145312280000688779148240044871428926990063486244781615463646388363947317026040466353970904996558162398808944629605623311649536164221970332681344168908984458505602379484807914058900934776500429002716706625830522008132236281291761267883317206598995396418127021779858404042159853183251540889433902091920554957783589672039160081957216630582755380425583726015528348786419432054508915275783882625175435528800822842770817965453762184851149029372.6669043995793459614134256945369645075601351114240611660953769955068077703667306957296141306508448454625087552917109594896080531977700026110164492454168360842816021326434091264082935824243423723923797225539436621445702083718252029147608535630355342037150034246754736376698525786226858661984354538762888998045417518871508690623462425811535266975472894356742618714099283198893793280003764002738670747
As you can see, the first 600 digits were the same. Now, when we subtract the two numbers,
X^1000 - twopi*floor(X^1000/twopi)
ans =
3.333095600420654038586574305463035492439864888575938833904623004493192229633269304270385869349155154537491244708289040510391946802229997388983550754583163915718397867356590873591706417575657627607620277446056337855429791628174797085239146436964465796284996575324526362330147421377314133801564546123711100195458248112849130937653757418846473302452710564325738128590071680110620671999623599726132925263826
This is why I referred to it as a massive subtractive cancellation issue. The two numbers were identical for many digits. Even carrying 1000 digits of accuracy, we lost many digits. When you subtract the two numbers, even though we are carrying a result with 1000 digits, only the highest order 400 digits are now meaningful.
HPF is able to compute the trig function of course. But as we showed above, we should only trust roughly the first 400 digits of the result. (On some problems, the local shape of the sin function might cause us to lose more digits than that.)
sin(X^1000)
ans =
-0.1903345812720831838599439606845545570938837404109863917294376841894712513865023424095542391769688083234673471544860353291299342362176199653705319268544933406487071446348974733627946491118519242322925266014312897692338851129959945710407032269306021895848758484213914397204873580776582665985136229328001258364005927758343416222346964077953970335574414341993543060039082045405589175008978144047447822552228622246373827700900275324736372481560928339463344332977892008702220160335415291421081700744044783839286957735438564512465095046421806677102961093487708088908698531980424016458534629166108853012535493022540352439740116731784303190082954669140297192942872076015028260408231321604825270343945928445589223610185565384195863513901089662882903491956506613967241725877276022863187800632706503317201234223359028987534885835397133761207714290279709429427673410881392869598191090443394014959206395112705966050737703851465772573657470968976925223745019446303227806333289071966161759485260639499431164004196825
So am I right, and we cannot trust all of these digits? I'll do the same computation, once in 1000 digits of precision, then a second time in 2000 digits. Compute the absolute difference, then take the log10. The 2000 digit result will be our reference as essentially exact compared to the 1000 digit result.
double(log10(abs(sin(hpf(4,[1000 0])^1000) - sin(hpf(4,[2000 0])^1000))))
ans =
-397.45
Ah. So of those 1000 digits of precision we started out with, we lost 602 digits. The last 602 digits in the result are non-zero, but still complete garbage. This was as I expected. Just because your computer reports high precision, you need to know when not to trust it.
Can we do the computation without recourse to a high precision tool? Be careful. For example, suppose we use a powermod type of computation? Thus, compute the desired power, while taking the modulus at every step. Thus, done in double precision:
X = 1;
for i = 1:1000
X = mod(X*4,2*pi);
end
sin(X)
ans =
0.955296299215251
Ah, but remember that the true answer was -0.19033458127208318385994396068455455709388...
So there is essentially nothing of significance remaining. We have lost all our information in that computation. As I said, it is important to be careful.
What happened was after each step in that loop, we incurred a tiny loss in the modulus computation. But then we multiplied the answer by 4, which caused the error to grow by a factor of 4, and then another factor of 4, etc. And of course, after each step, the result loses a tiny bit at the end of the number. The final result was complete crapola.
Lets look at the operation for a smaller power, just to convince ourselves what happened. Here for example, try the 20th power. Using double precision,
mod(4^20,2*pi)
ans =
3.55938555711037
Now, use a loop in a powermod computation, taking the mod after every step. Essentially, this discards multiples of 2*pi after each step.
X = 1;
for i = 1:20
X = mod(X*4,2*pi);
end
X
X =
3.55938555711037
But is that the correct value? Again, I'll use hpf to compute the correct value, showing the first 20 digits of that number. (Since I've done the computation in 50 total digits, I'll absolutely trust the first 20 of them.)
mod(hpf(4,[20,30])^20,2*hpf('pi',[20,30]))
ans =
3.5593426962577983146
In fact, while the results in double precision agree to the last digit shown, those double results were both actually wrong past the 5th significant digit. As it turns out, we STILL need to carry more than 600 digits of precision for this loop to produce a result of any significance.
Finally, to fully kill this dead horse, we might ask if a better powermod computation can be done. That is, we know that 1000 can be decomposed into a binary form (use dec2bin) as:
512 + 256 + 128 + 64 + 32 + 8
ans =
1000
Can we use a repeated squaring scheme to expand that large power with fewer multiplications, and so cause less accumulated error? Essentially, we might try to compute
4^1000 = 4^8 * 4^32 * 4^64 * 4^128 * 4^256 * 4^512
However, do this by repeatedly squaring 4, then taking the mod after each operation. This fails however, since the modulo operation will only remove integer multiples of 2*pi. After all, mod really is designed to work on integers. So look at what happens. We can express 4^2 as:
4^2 = 16 = 3.43362938564083 + 2*(2*pi)
Can we just square the remainder however, then taking the mod again? NO!
mod(3.43362938564083^2,2*pi)
ans =
5.50662545075664
mod(4^4,2*pi)
ans =
4.67258771281655
We can understand what happened when we expand this form:
4^4 = (4^2)^2 = (3.43362938564083 + 2*(2*pi))^2
What will you get when you remove INTEGER multiples of 2*pi? You need to understand why the direct loop allowed me to remove integer multiples of 2*pi, but the above squaring operation does not. Of course, the direct loop failed too because of numerical issues.
I would first redefine the question as follows: compute 4^1000 modulo 2pi. So we have split the problem in two.
Use some math trickery:
(a+2pi*K)*(b+2piL) = ab + 2pi*(garbage)
Hence, you can just multiply 4 many times by itself and computing mod 2pi every stage. The real question to ask, of course, is what is the precision of this thing. This needs careful mathematical analysis. It may or may not be a total crap.
Following to Pavel's hint with mod I found a mod function for high powers on mathwors.com.
bigmod(number,power,modulo) can NOT compute 4^4000 mod 2π. Because it just works with integers as modulo and not with decimals.
This statement is not correct anymore: sin(4^x) is sin(bidmod(4,x,2*pi)).