I am programming a simple perceptron in matlab but it is not converging and I can't figure out why.
The goal is to binary classify 2D points.
%P1 Generate a dataset of two-dimensional points, and choose a random line in
%the plane as your target function f, where one side of the line maps to +1 and
%the other side to -1. Let the inputs xn 2 R2 be random points in the plane,
%and evaluate the target function f on each xn to get the corresponding output
%yn = f(xn).
clear all;
clc
clear
n = 20;
inputSize = 2; %number of inputs
dataset = generateRandom2DPointsDataset(n)';
[f , m , b] = targetFunction();
signs = classify(dataset,m,b);
weights=ones(1,2)*0.1;
threshold = 0;
fprintf('weights before:%d,%d\n',weights);
mistakes = 1;
numIterations = 0;
figure;
plotpv(dataset',(signs+1)/2);%mapping signs from -1:1 to 0:1 in order to use plotpv
hold on;
line(f(1,:),f(2,:));
pause(1)
while true
mistakes = 0;
for i = 1:n
if dataset(i,:)*weights' > threshold
result = 1;
else
result = -1;
end
error = signs(i) - result;
if error ~= 0
mistakes = mistakes + 1;
for j = 1:inputSize
weights(j) = weights(j) + error*dataset(i,j);
end
end
numIterations = numIterations + 1
end
if mistakes == 0
break
end
end
fprintf('weights after:%d,%d\n',weights);
random points and signs are fine since plotpv is working well
The code is based on that http://es.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/fileexchange/32949-a-perceptron-learns-to-perform-a-binary-nand-function?focused=5200056&tab=function.
When I pause the infinite loop, this is the status of my vairables:
I am not able to see why it is not converging.
Additional code( it is fine, just to avoid answers asking for that )
function [f,m,b] = targetFunction()
f = rand(2,2);
f(1,1) = 0;
f(1,2) = 1;
m = (f(2,2) - f(2,1));
b = f(2,1);
end
function dataset = generateRandom2DPointsDataset(n)
dataset = rand(2,n);
end
function values = classify(dataset,m,b)
for i=1:size(dataset,1)
y = m*dataset(i,1) + b;
if dataset(i,2) >= y, values(i) = 1;
else values(i) = -1;
end
end
end
Here is the code which is trying to solve a coupled PDEs using finite difference method,
clear;
Lmax = 1.0; % Maximum length
Wmax = 1.0; % Maximum wedth
Tmax = 2.; % Maximum time
% Parameters needed to solve the equation
K = 30; % Number of time steps
n = 3; % Number of space steps
m =30; % Number of space steps
M = 2;
N = 1;
Pr = 1;
Re = 1;
Gr = 5;
maxn=20; % The wave-front: intermediate point from which u=0
maxm = 20;
maxk = 20;
dt = Tmax/K;
dx = Lmax/n;
dy = Wmax/m;
%M = a*B1^2*l/(p*U)
b =1/(1+M*dt);
c =dt/(1+M*dt);
d = dt/((1+M*dt)*dy);
%Gr = gB*(T-T1)*l/U^2;
% Initial value of the function u (amplitude of the wave)
for i = 1:n
if i < maxn
u(i,1)=1.;
else
u(i,1)=0.;
end
x(i) =(i-1)*dx;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
for j = 1:m
if j < maxm
v(j,1)=1.;
else
v(j,1)=0.;
end
y(j) =(j-1)*dy;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
for k = 1:K
if k < maxk
T(k,1)=1.;
else
T(k,1)=0.;
end
z(k) =(k-1)*dt;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Value at the boundary
%for k=0:K
%end
% Implementation of the explicit method
for k=0:K % Time loop
for i=1:n % Space loop
for j=1:m
u(i,j,k+1) = b*u(i,j,k)+c*Gr*T(i,j,k+1)+d*[((u(i,j+1,k)-u(i,j,k))/dy)^(N-1)*((u(i,j+1,k)-u(i,j,k))/dy)]-d*[((u(i,j,k)-u(i,j-1,k))/dy)^(N-1)*((u(i,j,k)-u(i,j-1,k))/dy)]-d*[u(i,j,k)*((u(i,j,k)-u(i-1,j,k))/dx)+v(i,j,k)*((u(i,j+1,k)-u(i,j,k))/dy)];
v(i,j,k+1) = dy*[(u(i-1,j,k+1)-u(i,j,k+1))/dx]+v(i,j-1,k+1);
T(i,j,k+1) = T(i,j,k)+(dt/(Pr*Re))*{(T(i,j+1,k)-2*T(i,j,k)+T(i,j-1,k))/dy^2-Pr*Re{u(i,j,k)*((T(i,j,k)-T(i-1,j,k))/dx)+v(i,j,k)*((T(i,j+1,k)-T(i,j,k))/dy)}};
end
end
end
% Graphical representation of the wave at different selected times
plot(x,u(:,1),'-',x,u(:,10),'-',x,u(:,50),'-',x,u(:,100),'-')
title('graphs')
xlabel('X')
ylabel('Y')
But I am getting this error
Subscript indices must either be real positive integers or logicals.
I am trying to implement this
with boundary conditions
Can someone please help me out!
Thanks
To be quite honest, it looks like you started with something that's way over your head, just typed everything down in one go without thinking much, and now you are surprised that it doesn't work...
In the future, please break down problems like these into waaaay smaller chunks that you can individually plot, check, test, etc. Better yet, try simpler problems first (wave equation, heat equation, ...), gradually working your way up to this.
I say this so harshly, because there were quite a number of fairly basic things wrong with your code:
you've used braces ({}) and brackets ([]) exactly as they are written in the equation. In MATLAB, braces are a constructor for a special container object called a cell array, and brackets are used to construct arrays and matrices. To group things like in the equation, you always have to use parentheses (()).
You had quite a number of parentheses wrong, which became apparent when I re-grouped and broke up those huge unintelligible lines into multiple lines that humans can actually read with understanding
you forgot to take the absolute values in the 3rd and 4th terms of u
you looped over k = 0:K and j = 1:m and then happily index everything with k and j-1. MATLAB is 1-based, meaning, the first element of anything is element 1, and indexing with 0 is an error
you've initialized 3 vectors u, v and T, but then index those in the loop as if they are 3D arrays
Now, I've managed to come up with the following code, which runs OK and at least more or less agrees with the equations shown. But I think it still doesn't make much sense because I get only zeros out (except for the initial values).
But, with this feedback, you should be able to correct any problems left.
Lmax = 1.0; % Maximum length
Wmax = 1.0; % Maximum wedth
Tmax = 2.; % Maximum time
% Parameters needed to solve the equation
K = 30; % Number of time steps
n = 3; % Number of space steps
m = 30; % Number of space steps
M = 2;
N = 1;
Pr = 1;
Re = 1;
Gr = 5;
maxn = 20; % The wave-front: intermediate point from which u=0
maxm = 20;
maxk = 20;
dt = Tmax/K;
dx = Lmax/n;
dy = Wmax/m;
%M = a*B1^2*l/(p*U)
b = 1/(1+M*dt);
c = dt/(1+M*dt);
d = dt/((1+M*dt)*dy);
%Gr = gB*(T-T1)*l/U^2;
% Initial value of the function u (amplitude of the wave)
u = zeros(n,m,K+1);
x = zeros(n,1);
for i = 1:n
if i < maxn
u(i,1)=1.;
else
u(i,1)=0.;
end
x(i) =(i-1)*dx;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
v = zeros(n,m,K+1);
y = zeros(m,1);
for j = 1:m
if j < maxm
v(1,j,1)=1.;
else
v(1,j,1)=0.;
end
y(j) =(j-1)*dy;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
T = zeros(n,m,K+1);
z = zeros(K,1);
for k = 1:K
if k < maxk
T(1,1,k)=1.;
else
T(1,1,k)=0.;
end
z(k) =(k-1)*dt;
end
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% Value at the boundary
%for k=0:K
%end
% Implementation of the explicit method
for k = 2:K % Time loop
for i = 2:n % Space loop
for j = 2:m-1
u(i,j,k+1) = b*u(i,j,k) + ...
c*Gr*T(i,j,k+1) + ...
d*(abs(u(i,j+1,k) - u(i,j ,k))/dy)^(N-1)*((u(i,j+1,k) - u(i,j ,k))/dy) - ...
d*(abs(u(i,j ,k) - u(i,j-1,k))/dy)^(N-1)*((u(i,j ,k) - u(i,j-1,k))/dy) - ...
d*(u(i,j,k)*((u(i,j ,k) - u(i-1,j,k))/dx) +...
v(i,j,k)*((u(i,j+1,k) - u(i ,j,k))/dy));
v(i,j,k+1) = dy*(u(i-1,j,k+1)-u(i,j,k+1))/dx + ...
v(i,j-1,k+1);
T(i,j,k+1) = T(i,j,k) + dt/(Pr*Re) * (...
(T(i,j+1,k) - 2*T(i,j,k) + T(i,j-1,k))/dy^2 - Pr*Re*(...
u(i,j,k)*((T(i,j,k) - T(i-1,j,k))/dx) + v(i,j,k)*((T(i,j+1,k) - T(i,j,k))/dy))...
);
end
end
end
% Graphical representation of the wave at different selected times
figure, hold on
plot(x, u(:, 1), '-',...
x, u(:, 10), '-',...
x, u(:, 50), '-',...
x, u(:,100), '-')
title('graphs')
xlabel('X')
ylabel('Y')
How would you code this in MATLAB?
This is what I've tried, but it doesn't work quite right.
function x = my_jacobi(A,b, tot_it)
%Inputs:
%A: Matrix
%b: Vector
%tot_it: Number of iterations
%Output:
%:x The solution after tot_it iterations
n = length(A);
x = zeros(n,1);
for k = 1:tot_it
for j = 1:n
for i = 1:n
if (j ~= i)
x(i) = -((A(i,j)/A(i,i)) * x(j) + (b(i)/A(i,i)));
else
continue;
end
end
end
end
end
j is an iterator of a sum over each i, so you need to change their order. Also the formula has a sum and in your code you're not adding anything so that's another thing to consider. The last thing I see that you're omitting is that you should save the previous state of xbecause the right side of the formula needs it. You should try something like this:
function x = my_jacobi(A,b, tot_it)
%Inputs:
%A: Matrix
%b: Vector
%tot_it: Number of iterations
%Output:
%:x The solution after tot_it iterations
n = length(A);
x = zeros(n,1);
s = 0; %Auxiliar var to store the sum.
xold = x
for k = 1:tot_it
for i = 1:n
for j = 1:n
if (j ~= i)
s = s + (A(i,j)/A(i,i)) * xold(j);
else
continue;
end
end
x(i) = -s + b(i)/A(i,i);
s = 0;
end
xold = x;
end
end
For my studies I had to write a PDE solver for the Poisson equation on a disc shaped domain using the finite difference method.
I already passed the Lab exercise. There is one issue in my code I couldn't fix. Function fun1 with the boundary value problem gun2 is somehow oscillating at the boundary. When I use fun2 everything seems fine...
Both functions use at the boundary gun2. What is the problem?
function z = fun1(x,y)
r = sqrt(x.^2+y.^2);
z = zeros(size(x));
if( r < 0.25)
z = -10^8*exp(1./(r.^2-1/16));
end
end
function z = fun2(x,y)
z = 100*sin(2*pi*x).*sin(2*pi*y);
end
function z = gun2(x,y)
z = x.^2+y.^2;
end
function [u,A] = poisson2(funame,guname,M)
if nargin < 3
M = 50;
end
%Mesh Grid Generation
h = 2/(M + 1);
x = -1:h:1;
y = -1:h:1;
[X,Y] = meshgrid(x,y);
CI = ((X.^2 +Y.^2) < 1);
%Boundary Elements
Sum= zeros(size(CI));
%Sum over the neighbours
for i = -1:1
Sum = Sum + circshift(CI,[i,0]) + circshift(CI,[0,i]) ;
end
%if sum of neighbours larger 3 -> inner note!
CI = (Sum > 3);
%else boundary
CB = (Sum < 3 & Sum ~= 0);
Sum= zeros(size(CI));
%Sum over the boundary neighbour nodes....
for i = -1:1
Sum = Sum + circshift(CB,[i,0]) + circshift(CB,[0,i]);
end
%If the sum is equal 2 -> Diagonal boundary
CB = CB + (Sum == 2 & CB == 0 & CI == 0);
%Converting X Y to polar coordinates
Phi = atan(Y./X);
%Converting Phi R back to cartesian coordinates, only at the boundarys
for j = 1:M+2
for i = 1:M+2
if (CB(i,j)~=0)
if j > (M+2)/2
sig = 1;
else
sig = -1;
end
X(i,j) = sig*1*cos(Phi(i,j));
Y(i,j) = sig*1*sin(Phi(i,j));
end
end
end
%Numberize the internal notes u1,u2,......,un
CI = CI.*reshape(cumsum(CI(:)),size(CI));
%Number of internal notes
Ni = nnz(CI);
f = zeros(Ni,1);
k = 1;
A = spalloc(Ni,Ni,5*Ni);
%Create matix A!
for j=2:M+1
for i =2:M+1
if(CI(i,j) ~= 0)
hN = h;hS = h; hW = h; hE = h;
f(k) = fun(X(i,j),Y(i,j));
if(CB(i+1,j) ~= 0)
hN = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j),Y(i+1,j))*2/(hN^2+hN*h);
A(k,CI(i-1,j)) = -2/(h^2+h*hN);
else
if(CB(i-1,j) ~= 0) %in negative y is a boundry
hS = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j),Y(i-1,j))*2/(hS^2+h*hS);
A(k,CI(i+1,j)) = -2/(h^2+h*hS);
else
A(k,CI(i-1,j)) = -1/h^2;
A(k,CI(i+1,j)) = -1/h^2;
end
end
if(CB(i,j+1) ~= 0)
hE = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j+1),Y(i,j))*2/(hE^2+hE*h);
A(k,CI(i,j-1)) = -2/(h^2+h*hE);
else
if(CB(i,j-1) ~= 0)
hW = abs(1-sqrt(X(i,j)^2+Y(i,j)^2));
f(k) = f(k) + gun(X(i,j-1),Y(i,j))*2/(hW^2+h*hW);
A(k,CI(i,j+1)) = -2/(h^2+h*hW);
else
A(k,CI(i,j-1)) = -1/h^2;
A(k,CI(i,j+1)) = -1/h^2;
end
end
A(k,k) = (2/(hE*hW)+2/(hN*hS));
k = k + 1;
end
end
end
%Solve linear system
u = A\f;
U = zeros(M+2,M+2);
p = 1;
%re-arange u
for j = 1:M+2
for i = 1:M+2
if ( CI(i,j) ~= 0)
U(i,j) = u(p);
p = p+1;
else
if ( CB(i,j) ~= 0)
U(i,j) = gun(X(i,j),Y(i,j));
else
U(i,j) = NaN;
end
end
end
end
surf(X,Y,U);
end
I'm keeping this answer short for now, but may extend when the question contains more info.
My first guess is that what you are seeing is just numerical errors. Looking at the scales of the two graphs, the peaks in the first graph are relatively small compared to the signal in the second graph. Maybe there is a similar issue in the second that is just not visible because the signal is much bigger. You could try to increase the number of nodes and observe what happens with the result.
You should always expect to see numerical errors in such simulations. It's only a matter of trying to get their magnitude as small as possible (or as small as needed).
I can't seem to find a fix to my infinite loop. I have coded a Jacobi solver to solve a system of linear equations.
Here is my code:
function [x, i] = Jacobi(A, b, x0, TOL)
[m n] = size(A);
i = 0;
x = [0;0;0];
while (true)
i =1;
for r=1:m
sum = 0;
for c=1:n
if r~=c
sum = sum + A(r,c)*x(c);
else
x(r) = (-sum + b(r))/A(r,c);
end
x(r) = (-sum + b(r))/A(r,c);
xxx end xxx
end
if abs(norm(x) - norm(x0)) < TOL;
break
end
x0 = x;
i = i + 1;
end
When I terminate the code it ends at the line with xxx
The reason why your code isn't working is due to the logic of your if statements inside your for loops. Specifically, you need to accumulate all values for a particular row that don't belong to the diagonal of that row first. Once that's done, you then perform the division. You also need to make sure that you're dividing by the diagonal coefficient of A for that row you're concentrating on, which corresponds to the component of x you're trying to solve for. You also need to remove the i=1 statement at the beginning of your loop. You're resetting i each time.
In other words:
function [x, i] = Jacobi(A, b, x0, TOL)
[m n] = size(A);
i = 0;
x = [0;0;0];
while (true)
for r=1:m
sum = 0;
for c=1:n
if r==c %// NEW
continue;
end
sum = sum + A(r,c)*x(c); %// NEW
end
x(r) = (-sum + b(r))/A(r,r); %// CHANGE
end
if abs(norm(x) - norm(x0)) < TOL;
break
end
x0 = x;
i = i + 1;
end
Example use:
A = [6 1 1; 1 5 3; 0 2 4]
b = [1 2 3].';
[x,i] = Jacobi(A, b, [0;0;0], 1e-10)
x =
0.048780487792648
-0.085365853612062
0.792682926806031
i =
20
This means it took 20 iterations to achieve a solution with tolerance 1e-10. Compare this with MATLAB's built-in inverse:
x2 = A \ b
x2 =
0.048780487804878
-0.085365853658537
0.792682926829268
As you can see, I specified a tolerance of 1e-10, which means we are guaranteed to have 10 decimal places of accuracy. We can certainly see 10 decimal places of accuracy between what Jacobi gives us with what MATLAB gives us built-in.