I am using the following matlab tool to solve my linear equations
x = linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub)
all things going well with me, but the result of x vector not integer values. so how can I set the x vector to be integer value or take value 0 or 1 only.(I mean solve linear equations for integer result).
let me explain more:
if I want to min x for the objective function 8X1 + X2
subject to
x1+2x2≥−14, −4x1−x2≤−33, 2x1+x2≤20
the result of X1,X2 not integer value.
If you have Matlab version 2014a above, then there is intlinprog for what you are looking for.
UPDATE:
Since you have Matlab 2012b, so i strongly suggest you to use this perfect tool at first, but you need something called Internet connection [j/k :-)]. By the way, there are some solutions:
something on Matlab exchange.
GLPK (GNU Linear Programming Kit)
answered question on stackoverflow
Related
For a spectrum estimation algorithm I need to find the best fitting linear combination of vectors to fit a target spectral distribution. So far, this works relatively well using the lsqlin optimizer in MATLAB.
However, for the final application I would like to approximate/solve this problem for exclusively zeros and ones, meaning Ax=b solved for Boolean x.
Is there any way to parametrize lsqlin or another optimizer function for this purpose?
If the problem is just:
Solve Ax=b for x in {0,1}
then you can use a MIP solver (e.g. Matlab intlinprog). If the problem is over-constrained and you want a least squares solution:
Min w'w
S.t. Ax - b = w
x in {0,1} (binary variable)
w free variable
then you have a MIQP (Mixed Integer Quadratic Programming) problem. There are good solvers for this such as Cplex and Gurobi (callable from Matlab). Also Matlab has a discussion about an approximation scheme using intlinprog. Another idea is to replace the quadratic objective by a sum of absolute values. This can be formulated as linear MIP model.
I'm using Pulp to solve a linear program (also getting the same result with scipy). So something wrong with my linear program formulation, or I don't know some tricky details on how simplex algorithm works.
Here is objective function for minimisation, notice that multiplier for x2 is 0, so I don't expect x1 or x2 to have any value except 0, because x3 doesn't have max constraint and -1 * x3 is able to provide more value for minimisation:
System of linear equations:
As a solution I'm getting x2 = 20 even if its multiplier in objective function is 0.
If in objective function I set -2 * x3, then it works just fine.
The solution you've posted gives the objective = -380. Check x=[20,0,0,20,0,20,20,0], the objective function is -380 as well, which implies it's optimal too, hence, you have infinitely many solutions (it's easy to show that any convex combination of this two points is optimal, see any Linear Programming book). The problem is your PuLP solver stopped when it's encountered one optimal extreme point. If you are interested in getting all the optimal extreme points I would recommend you to use Cplex (it's not free but you might be eligible for IBM academic initiatives). Also, you can set a solution method to Dual Simlex in your PuLP solver to make it go in different direction and there is a chance you will get the other extreme point.
I'm using octave 3.8.1 which works like matlab.
I have an array of thousands of values I've only included three groupings as an example below:
(amp1=0.2; freq1=3; phase1=1; is an example of one grouping)
t=0;
amp1=0.2; freq1=3; phase1=1; %1st grouping
amp2=1.4; freq2=2; phase2=1.7; %2nd grouping
amp3=0.8; freq3=5; phase3=1.5; %3rd grouping
The Octave / Matlab code below solves for Y so I can plug it back into the equation to check values along with calculating values not located in the array.
clear all
t=0;
Y=0;
a1=[.2,3,1;1.4,2,1.7;.8,5,1.5]
for kk=1:1:length(a1)
Y=Y+a1(kk,1)*cos ((a1(kk,2))*t+a1(kk,3))
kk
end
Y
PS: I'm not trying to solve for Y since it's already solved for I'm trying to solve for Phase
The formulas located below are used to calculate Phase but I'm not sure how to put it into a for loop that will work in an array of n groupings:
How would I write the equation / for loop for finding the phase if I want to find freq=2.5 and amp=.23 and the phase is unknown I've looked online and it may require writing non linear equations which I'm not sure how to convert what I'm trying to do into such an equation.
phase1_test=acos(Y/amp1-amp3*cos(2*freq3*pi*t+phase3)/amp1-amp2*cos(2*freq2*pi*t+phase2)/amp1)-2*freq1*pi*t
phase2_test=acos(Y/amp2-amp3*cos(2*freq3*pi*t+phase3)/amp2-amp1*cos(2*freq1*pi*t+phase1)/amp2)-2*freq2*pi*t
phase3_test=acos(Y/amp3-amp2*cos(2*freq2*pi*t+phase2)/amp3-amp1*cos(2*freq1*pi*t+phase1)/amp3)-2*freq2*pi*t
Image of formula below:
I would like to do a check / calculate phases if given a freq and amp values.
I know I have to do a for loop but how do I convert the phase equation into a for loop so it will work on n groupings in an array and calculate different values not found in the array?
Basically I would be given an array of n groupings and freq=2.5 and amp=.23 and use the formula to calculate phase. Note: freq will not always be in the array hence why I'm trying to calculate the phase using a formula.
Ok, I think I finally understand your question:
you are trying to find a set of phase1, phase2,..., phaseN, such that equations like the ones you describe are satisfied
You know how to find y, and you supply values for freq and amp.
In Matlab, such a problem would be solved using, for example fsolve, but let's look at your problem step by step.
For simplicity, let me re-write your equations for phase1, phase2, and phase3. For example, your first equation, the one for phase1, would read
amp1*cos(phase1 + 2 freq1 pi t) + amp2*cos(2 freq2 pi t + phase2) + amp3*cos(2 freq3 pi t + phase3) - y = 0
Note that ampX (X is a placeholder for 1, 2, 3) are given, pi is a constant, t is given via Y (I think), freqX are given.
Hence, you are, in fact, dealing with a non-linear vector equation of the form
F(phase) = 0
where F is a multi-dimensional (vector) function taking a multi-dimensional (vector) input variable phase (comprised of phase1, phase2,..., phaseN). And you are looking for the set of phaseX, where all of the components of your vector function F are zero. N.B. F is a shorthand for your functions. Therefore, the first component of F, called f1, for example, is
f1 = amp1*cos(phase1+...) + amp2*cos(phase2+...) + amp3*cos(phase3+...) - y = 0.
Hence, f1 is a one-dimensional function of phase1, phase2, and phase3.
The technical term for what you are trying to do is find a zero of a non-linear vector function, or find a solution of a non-linear vector function. In Matlab, there are different approaches.
For a one-dimensional function, you can use fzero, which is explained at http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/fzero.html?refresh=true
For a multi-dimensional (vector) function as yours, I would look into using fsolve, which is part of Matlab's optimization toolbox (which means I don't know how to do this in Octave). The function fsolve is explained at http://www.mathworks.com/help/optim/ug/fsolve.html
If you know an approximate solution for your phases, you may also look into iterative, local methods.
In particular, I would recommend you look into the Newton's Method, which allows you to find a solution to your system of equations F. Wikipedia has a good explanation of Newton's Method at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_method . Newton iterations are very simple to implement and you should find a lot of resources online. You will have to compute the derivative of your function F with respect to each of your variables phaseX, which is very simple to compute since you're only dealing with cos() functions. For starters, have a look at the one-dimensional Newton iteration method in Matlab at http://www.math.colostate.edu/~gerhard/classes/331/lab/newton.html .
Finally, if you want to dig deeper, I found a textbook on this topic from the society for industrial and applied math: https://www.siam.org/books/textbooks/fr16_book.pdf .
As you can see, this is a very large field; Newton's method should be able to help you out, though.
Good luck!
What is the least computational time consuming way to solve in Matlab the equation:
exp(ax)-ax+c=0
where a and c are constants and x is the value I'm trying to find?
Currently I am using the in built solver function, and I know the solution is single valued, but it is just taking longer than I would like.
Just wanting something to run more quickly is insufficient for that to happen.
And, sorry, but if fzero is not fast enough then you won't do much better for a general root finding tool.
If you aren't using fzero, then why not? After all, that IS the built-in solver you did not name. (BE EXPLICIT! Otherwise we must guess.) Perhaps you are using solve, from the symbolic toolbox. It will be more slow, since it is a symbolic tool.
Having said the above, I might point out that you might be able to improve by recognizing that this is really a problem with a single parameter, c. That is, transform the problem to solving
exp(y) - y + c = 0
where
y = ax
Once you know the value of y, divide by a to get x.
Of course, this way of looking at the problem makes it obvious that you have made an incorrect statement, that the solution is single valued. There are TWO solutions for any negative value of c less than -1. When c = -1, the solution is unique, and for c greater than -1, no solutions exist in real numbers. (If you allow complex results, then there will be solutions there too.)
So if you MUST solve the above problem frequently and fzero was inadequate, then I would consider a spline model, where I had precomputed solutions to the problem for a sufficient number of distinct values of c. Interpolate that spline model to get a predicted value of y for any c.
If I needed more accuracy, I might take a single Newton step from that point.
In the event that you can use the Lambert W function, then solve actually does give us a solution for the general problem. (As you see, I am just guessing what you are trying to solve this with, and what are your goals. Explicit questions help the person trying to help you.)
solve('exp(y) - y + c')
ans =
c - lambertw(0, -exp(c))
The zero first argument to lambertw yields the negative solution. In fact, we can use lambertw to give us both the positive and negative real solutions for any c no larger than -1.
X = #(c) c - lambertw([0 -1],-exp(c));
X(-1.1)
ans =
-0.48318 0.41622
X(-2)
ans =
-1.8414 1.1462
Solving your system symbolically
syms a c x;
fx0 = solve(exp(a*x)-a*x+c==0,x)
which results in
fx0 =
(c - lambertw(0, -exp(c)))/a
As #woodchips pointed out, the Lambert W function has two primary branches, W0 and W−1. The solution given is with respect to the upper (or principal) branch, denoted W0, your equation actually has an infinite number of complex solutions for Wk (the W0 and W−1 solutions are real if c is in [−∞, 0]). In Matlab, lambertw is only implemented for symbolic inputs and thus is very slow method of solving your equation if you're interested in numerical (double precision) solutions.
If you wish to solve such equations numerically in an efficient manner, you might look at Corless, et al. 1996. But, as long as your parameter c is in [−∞, 0], i.e., -exp(c) in [−1/e, 0] and you're interested in the W0 branch, you can use the Matlab code that I wrote to answer a similar question at Math.StackExchange. This code should be much much more efficient that using a naïve approach with fzero.
If your values of c are not in [−∞, 0] or you want the solution corresponding to a different branch, then your solution may be complex-valued and you won't be able to use the simple code I linked to above. In that case, you can more fully implement the function by reading the Corless, et al. 1996 paper or you can try converting the Lambert W to a Wright ω function: W0(z) = ω(log(z)), W−1(z) = ω(log(z)−2πi). In your case, using Matlab's wrightOmega, the W0 branch corresponds to:
fx0 =
(c - wrightOmega(log(-exp(c))))/a
and the W−1 branch to:
fxm1 =
(c - wrightOmega(log(-exp(c))-2*sym(pi)*1i))/a
If c is real, then the above reduces to
fx0 =
(c - wrightOmega(c+sym(pi)*1i))/a
and
fxm1 =
(c - wrightOmega(c-sym(pi)*1i))/a
Matlab's wrightOmega function is also symbolic only, but I have written a double precision implementation (based on Lawrence, et al. 2012) that you can find on my GitHub here and that is 3+ orders of magnitude faster than evaluating the function symbolically. As your problem is technically in terms of a Lambert W, it may be more efficient, and possibly more numerically accurate, to implement that more complicated function for the regime of interest (this is due to the log transformation and the extra evaluation of a complex log). But feel free to test.
Hello i have one question. When I calculate a division in matlab: x/(pi.^2)
syms x
x/(pi.^2)
ans =
(281474976710656*v)/2778046668940015
the correct answer is x/9.8696, so why is matlab giving me this result?
Is it a bug?
You have to use the vpa() command "Variable-precision arithmetic". Check this code:
syms x real; % define x as a real symbolic variable (not a complex variable)
vpa( x/(pi.^2), 5) % second argument define number of significant digits
For trigonometric expressions involving pi, it is sometimes good to define sym('pi'):
syms x real;
pi_s = sym('pi');
expr = x/pi_s^2
I try to always use the 'real' tag when using the symbolic toolbox. If you do not use it you are going to see a lot of complex conjugates and other things that are not important for your problem, because x is probably real variable.
Hope this helps,
No it is not a bug:
2778046668940015/281474976710656 = 9.8696