I have a function that I was wondering if it was possible to vectorize it and not have to use a for loop. The code is below.
a=1:2:8
for jj=1:length(a)
b(jj)=rtfib(a(jj)); %fibbonacci function
end
b
output below:
a =
1 3 5 7
>>>b =
1 3 8 21
I was trying to do it this way
t = 0:.01:10;
y = sin(t);
but doing the code below doesn't work any suggestions?
ps: I'm trying to keep the function rtfib because of it's speed and I need to use very large Fibonacci numbers. I'm using octave 3.8.1
a=1:2:8
b=rtfib(a)
Here's the rtfib code below as requested
function f = rtfib(n)
if (n == 0)
f = 0;
elseif (n==1)
f=1;
elseif (n == 2)
f = 2;
else
fOld = 2;
fOlder = 1;
for i = 3 : n
f = fOld + fOlder;
fOlder = fOld;
fOld = f;
end
end
end
You can see that your function rtfib actually computes every Fibonacci number up to n.
You can modify it so that is stores and returns all these number, so that you only have to call the function once with the maximum number you need:
function f = rtfib(n)
f=zeros(1,n+1);
if (n >= 0)
f(1) = 0;
end
if (n>=1)
f(2)=1;
end
if (n >= 2)
f(3) = 2;
end
if n>2
fOld = 2;
fOlder = 1;
for i = 3 : n
f(i+1) = fOld + fOlder;
fOlder = fOld;
fOld = f(i+1);
end
end
end
(It will return fibonnaci(n) in f(n+1), if you don't need the 0 you could change it so that it returns fibonnaci(n) in f(n) if you prefer)
Then you only need to call
>>f=rtfib(max(a));
>>b=f(a+1)
b =
1 3 8 21
If you don't want to store everything you could modify the function rtfib a little more, so that it takes the the array a as input, compute the Fibonacci numbers up to max(a) but only stores the one needed, and it would directly return b.
Both solutions will slow down rtfib itself but it will be a lot faster than calculating the Fibonacci numbers from 0 each time.
Related
I am sending a matrix to my function modifikuj, where I want to replace the elements of the matrix with:
1 if element is a prime number
0 if element is a composite number
0.5 if element is 1
I dont understand why it is not working. I just started with MATLAB, and I created this function:
function B = modifikuj(A)
[n,m] = size(A);
for i = 1:n
for j = 1:m
prost=1;
if (A(i,j) == 1)
A(i,j) = 0.5;
else
for k = 2:(A(i,j))
if(mod(A(i,j),k) == 0)
prost=0;
end
end
if(prost==1)
A(i,j)=1;
else
A(i,j)=0;
end
end
end
end
With
A = [1,2;3,4];
D = modifikuj(A);
D should be:
D=[0.5, 1; 1 0];
In MATLAB you'll find you can often avoid loops, and there's plenty of built in functions to ease your path. Unless this is a coding exercise where you have to use a prescribed method, I'd do the following one-liner to get your desired result:
D = isprime( A ) + 0.5*( A == 1 );
This relies on two simple tests:
isprime( A ) % 1 if prime, 0 if not prime
A == 1 % 1 if == 1, 0 otherwise
Multiplying the 2nd test by 0.5 gives your desired condition for when the value is 1, since it will also return 0 for the isprime test.
You are not returning anything from the function. The return value is supposed to be 'B' according to your code but this is not set. Change it to A.
You are looping k until A(i,j) which is always divisible by itself, loop to A(i,j)-1
With the code below I get [0.5,1;1,0].
function A = modifikuj(A)
[n,m] = size(A);
for i = 1:n
for j = 1:m
prost=1;
if (A(i,j) == 1)
A(i,j) = 0.5;
else
for k = 2:(A(i,j)-1)
if(mod(A(i,j),k) == 0)
prost=0;
end
end
if(prost==1)
A(i,j)=1;
else
A(i,j)=0;
end
end
end
end
In addition to #EuanSmith's answer. You can also use the in built matlab function in order to determine if a number is prime or not.
The following code will give you the desired output:
A = [1,2;3,4];
A(A==1) = 0.5; %replace 1 number with 0.5
A(isprime(A)) = 1; %replace prime number with 1
A(~ismember(A,[0.5,1])) = 0; %replace composite number with 0
I've made the assumption that the matrice contains only integer.
If you only want to learn, you can also preserve the for loop with some improvement since the function mod can take more than 1 divisor as input:
function A = modifikuj(A)
[n,m] = size(A);
for i = 1:n
for j = 1:m
k = A(i,j);
if (k == 1)
A(i,j) = 0.5;
else
if all(mod(k,2:k-1)) %check each modulo at the same time.
A(i,j)=1;
else
A(i,j)=0;
end
end
end
end
And you can still improve the prime detection:
2 is the only even number to test.
number bigger than A(i,j)/2 are useless
so instead of all(mod(k,2:k-1)) you can use all(mod(k,[2,3:2:k/2]))
Note also that the function isprime is a way more efficient primality test since it use the probabilistic Miller-Rabin algorithme.
I'm trying to call a numerical integration function (namely one that uses the trapazoidal method) to compute a definite integral. However, I want to pass more than one value of 'n' to the following function,
function I = traprule(f, a, b, n)
if ~isa(f, 'function_handle')
error('Your first argument was not a function handle')
end
h = (b-a)./ n;
x = a:h:b;
S = 0;
for j = 2:n
S = S + f(x(j));
end
I = (h/2)*(f(a) + 2*S + f(b)); %computes indefinite integral
end
I'm using; f = #(x) 1/x, a = 1 and b = 2. I'm trying to pass n = 10.^(1:10) too, however, I get the following output for I when I do so,
I =
Columns 1 through 3
0.693771403175428 0.069377140317543 0.006937714031754
Columns 4 through 6
0.000693771403175 0.000069377140318 0.000006937714032
Columns 7 through 9
0.000000693771403 0.000000069377140 0.000000006937714
Column 10
0.000000000693771
Any ideas on how to get the function to take n = 10.^(1:10) so I get an output something like,
I = 0.693771403175428, 0.693153430481824, 0.693147243059937 ... and so on for increasing powers of 10?
In the script where you are calling this from, simply iterate over n
k = 3;
f = #(x)1./x;
a = 1; b = 2;
I = zeros(k,1);
for n = 1:k
I(n) = traprule(f, a, b, 10^n);
end
% output: I = 0.693771403175428
% 0.693153430481824
% 0.693147243059937
Then I will contain all of the outputs. Alternatively you can adapt your function to use the same logic to loop over the elements of n if it is passed
as a vector.
Note, you can improve the efficiency of your traprule code by removing the for loop:
% This loop operates on every element of x individually, and is inefficient
S = 0;
for j = 2:n
S = S + f(x(j));
end
% If you ensure you use element-wise equations like f=#(x)1./x instead of f=#(x)1/x
% Then you can use this alternative:
S = sum(f(x(2:n)));
Hey i have an issuse with plotting my own function in scilab.
I want to plot the following function
function f = test(n)
if n < 0 then
f(n) = 0;
elseif n <= 1 & n >= 0 then
f(n) = sin((%pi * n)/2);
else
f(n) = 1;
end
endfunction
followed by the the console command
x = [-2:0.1:2];
plot(x, test(x));
i loaded the function and get the following error
!--error 21
Invalid Index.
at line 7 of function lala called by :
plot(x, test(x))
Can you please tell me how i can fix this
So i now did it with a for loop. I don't think it is the best solution but i can't get the other ones running atm...
function f = test(n)
f = zeros(size(n));
t = length(n);
for i = 1:t
if n(i) < 0 then
f(i) = 0;
elseif n(i) <= 1 & n(i) >= 0
f(i) = sin((%pi * n(i)/2));
elseif n(i) > 1 then
f(i) = 1;
end
end
endfunction
I guess i need to find a source about this issue and get used with the features and perks matlab/scilab have to over :)
Thanks for the help tho
The original sin is
function f = test(n)
(...)
f(n) = (...)
(...)
endfunction
f is supposed to be the result of the function. Therefore, f(n) is not "the value that the function test takes on argument n", but "the n-th element of f". Scilab then handles this however it can; on your test case, it tries to access a non-integer index, which results in an error. Your loop solution solves the problem.
Replacing all three f(n) by f in your first formulation makes it into something that works... as long as the argument is a scalar (not an array).
If you want test to be able to accept vector arguments without making a loop, the problem is that n < 0 is a vector of the same size as n. My solution would use logical arrays for indexing each of the three conditions:
function f = test(n)
f = zeros(size(n));
negative = (n<0);//parentheses are optional, but I like them for readability
greater_than_1 = (n>1);
others = ~negative & ~greater_than_1;
f(isnegative)=0;
f(greater_than_1)=1;
f(others) = sin(%pi/2*n(others));
endfunction
I have a function that tells me the nth number in a Fibonacci sequence. The problem is it becomes very slow when trying to find larger numbers in the Fibonacci sequence does anyone know how I can fix this?
function f = rtfib(n)
if (n==1)
f= 1;
elseif (n == 2)
f = 2;
else
f =rtfib(n-1) + rtfib(n-2);
end
The Results,
tic; rtfib(20), toc
ans = 10946
Elapsed time is 0.134947 seconds.
tic; rtfib(30), toc
ans = 1346269
Elapsed time is 16.6724 seconds.
I can't even get a value after 5 mins doing rtfib(100)
PS: I'm using octave 3.8.1
If time is important (not programming techniques):
function f = fib(n)
if (n == 1)
f = 1;
elseif (n == 2)
f = 2;
else
fOld = 2;
fOlder = 1;
for i = 3 : n
f = fOld + fOlder;
fOlder = fOld;
fOld = f;
end
end
end
tic;fib(40);toc; ans = 165580141; Elapsed time is 0.000086 seconds.
You could even use uint64. n = 92 is the most you can get from uint64:
tic;fib(92);toc; ans = 12200160415121876738; Elapsed time is 0.001409 seconds.
Because,
fib(93) = 19740274219868223167 > intmax('uint64') = 18446744073709551615
Edit
In order to get fib(n) up to n = 183, It is possible to use two uint64 as one number,
with a special function for summation,
function [] = fib(n)
fL = uint64(0);
fH = uint64(0);
MaxNum = uint64(1e19);
if (n == 1)
fL = 1;
elseif (n == 2)
fL = 2;
else
fOldH = uint64(0);
fOlderH = uint64(0);
fOldL = uint64(2);
fOlderL = uint64(1);
for i = 3 : n
[fL q] = LongSum (fOldL , fOlderL , MaxNum);
fH = fOldH + fOlderH + q;
fOlderL = fOldL;
fOlderH = fOldH;
fOldL = fL;
fOldH = fH;
end
end
sprintf('%u',fH,fL)
end
LongSum is:
function [s q] = LongSum (a, b, MaxNum)
if a + b >= MaxNum
q = 1;
if a >= MaxNum
s = a - MaxNum;
s = s + b;
elseif b >= MaxNum
s = b - MaxNum;
s = s + a;
else
s = MaxNum - a;
s = b - s;
end
else
q = 0;
s = a + b;
end
Note some complications in LongSum might seem unnecessary, but they are not!
(All the deal with inner if is that I wanted to avoid s = a + b - MaxNum in one command, because it might overflow and store an irrelevant number in s)
Results
tic;fib(159);toc; Elapsed time is 0.009631 seconds.
ans = 1226132595394188293000174702095995
tic;fib(183);toc; Elapsed time is 0.009735 seconds.
fib(183) = 127127879743834334146972278486287885163
However, you have to be careful about sprintf.
I also did it with three uint64, and I could get up to,
tic;fib(274);toc; Elapsed time is 0.032249 seconds.
ans = 1324695516964754142521850507284930515811378128425638237225
(It's pretty much the same code, but I could share it if you are interested).
Note that we have fib(1) = 1 , fib(2) = 2according to question, while it is more common with fib(1) = 1 , fib(2) = 1, first 300 fibs are listed here (thanks to #Rick T).
Seems like fibonaacci series follows the golden ratio, as talked about in some detail here.
This was used in this MATLAB File-exchange code and I am writing here, just the esssence of it -
sqrt5 = sqrt(5);
alpha = (1 + sqrt5)/2; %// alpha = 1.618... is the golden ratio
fibs = round( alpha.^n ./ sqrt5 )
You can feed an integer into n for the nth number in Fibonacci Series or feed an array 1:n to have the whole series.
Please note that this method holds good till n = 69 only.
If you have access to the Symbolic Math Toolbox in MATLAB, you could always just call the Fibonacci function from MuPAD:
>> fib = #(n) evalin(symengine, ['numlib::fibonacci(' num2str(n) ')'])
>> fib(274)
ans =
818706854228831001753880637535093596811413714795418360007
It is pretty fast:
>> timeit(#() fib(274))
ans =
0.0011
Plus you can you go for as large numbers as you want (limited only by how much RAM you have!), it is still blazing fast:
% see if you can beat that!
>> tic
>> x = fib(100000);
>> toc % Elapsed time is 0.004621 seconds.
% result has more than 20 thousand digits!
>> length(char(x)) % 20899
Here is the full value of fib(100000): http://pastebin.com/f6KPGKBg
To reach large numbers you can use symbolic computation. The following works in Matlab R2010b.
syms x y %// declare variables
z = x + y; %// define formula
xval = '0'; %// initiallize x, y values
yval = '1';
for n = 2:300
zval = subs(z, [x y], {xval yval}); %// update z value
disp(['Iteration ' num2str(n) ':'])
disp(zval)
xval = yval; %// shift values
yval = zval;
end
You can do it in O(log n) time with matrix exponentiation:
X = [0 1
1 1]
X^n will give you the nth fibonacci number in the lower right-hand corner; X^n can be represented as the product of several matrices X^(2^i), so for example X^11 would be X^1 * X^2 * X^8, i <= log_2(n). And X^8 = (X^4)^2, etc, so at most 2*log(n) matrix multiplications.
One performance issue is that you use a recursive solution. Going for an iterative method will spare you of the argument passing for each function call. As Olivier pointed out, it will reduce the complexity to linear.
You can also look here. Apparently there's a formula that computes the n'th member of the Fibonacci sequence. I tested it for up to 50'th element. For higher n values it's not very accurate.
The implementation of a fast Fibonacci computation in Python could be as follows. I know this is Python not MATLAB/Octave, however it might be helpful.
Basically, rather than calling the same Fibonacci function over and over again with O(2n), we are storing Fibonacci sequence on a list/array with O(n):
#!/usr/bin/env python3.5
class Fib:
def __init__(self,n):
self.n=n
self.fibList=[None]*(self.n+1)
self.populateFibList()
def populateFibList(self):
for i in range(len(self.fibList)):
if i==0:
self.fibList[i]=0
if i==1:
self.fibList[i]=1
if i>1:
self.fibList[i]=self.fibList[i-1]+self.fibList[i-2]
def getFib(self):
print('Fibonacci sequence up to ', self.n, ' is:')
for i in range(len(self.fibList)):
print(i, ' : ', self.fibList[i])
return self.fibList[self.n]
def isNonnegativeInt(value):
try:
if int(value)>=0:#throws an exception if non-convertible to int: returns False
return True
else:
return False
except:
return False
n=input('Please enter a non-negative integer: ')
while isNonnegativeInt(n)==False:
n=input('A non-negative integer is needed: ')
n=int(n) # convert string to int
print('We are using ', n, 'based on what you entered')
print('Fibonacci result is ', Fib(n).getFib())
Output for n=12 would be like:
I tested the runtime for n=100, 300, 1000 and the code is really fast, I don't even have to wait for the output.
One simple way to speed up the recursive implementation of a Fibonacci function is to realize that, substituting f(n-1) by its definition,
f(n) = f(n-1) + f(n-2)
= f(n-2) + f(n-3) + f(n-2)
= 2*f(n-2) + f(n-3)
This simple transformation greatly reduces the number of steps taken to compute a number in the series.
If we start with OP's code, slightly corrected:
function result = fibonacci(n)
switch n
case 0
result = 0;
case 1
result = 1;
case 2
result = 1;
case 3
result = 2;
otherwise
result = fibonacci(n-2) + fibonacci(n-1);
end
And apply our transformation:
function result = fibonacci_fast(n)
switch n
case 0
result = 0;
case 1
result = 1;
case 2
result = 1;
case 3
result = 2;
otherwise
result = fibonacci_fast(n-3) + 2*fibonacci_fast(n-2);
end
Then we see a 30x speed improvement for computing the 20th number in the series (using Octave):
>> tic; for ii=1:100, fibonacci(20); end; toc
Elapsed time is 12.4393 seconds.
>> tic; for ii=1:100, fibonacci_fast(20); end; toc
Elapsed time is 0.448623 seconds.
Of course Rashid's non-recursive implementation is another 60x faster still: 0.00706792 seconds.
If I have a matrix and I want to apply a function to each row of the matrix. This function has three possible outputs, either x = 0, x = 1, or x > 0. There's a couple things I'm running into trouble with...
1) The cases that output x = 1 or x > 0 are different and I'm not sure how to differentiate between the two when writing my script.
2) My function isn't counting correctly? I think this might be a problem with how I have my loop set up?
This is what I've come up with. Logically, I feel like this should work (except for the hiccup w/ the first problem I've stated)
[m n] = size(matrix);
a = 0; b = 0; c = 0;
for i = 1 : m
x(i) = function(matrix(m,:));
if x > 0
a = a + 1;
end
if x == 0
b = b + 1;
end
if x == 1
c = c + 1;
end
end
First you probably have an error in line 4. It probably should be i instead of m.
x(i) = function(matrix(i,:));
You can calculate a, b and c out of the loop:
a = sum(x>0);
b = sum(x==0);
c = sum(x==1);
If you want to distinguish x==1 and x>0 then may be with sum(xor(x==1,x>0)).
Also you may have problem with precision error when comparing double values with 0 and 1.