I'm trying to figure out a way to make a plot of a function in Matlab that accepts k parameters and returns a 3D point. Currently I've got this working for two variables m and n. How can I expand this process to any number of parameters?
K = zeros(360*360, number);
for m = 0:5:359
for n = 1:5:360
K(m*360 + n, 1) = cosd(m)+cosd(m+n);
K(m*360 + n, 2) = sind(m)+sind(m+n);
K(m*360 + n, 3) = cosd(m)+sind(m+n);
end
end
K(all(K==0,2),:)=[];
plot3(K(:,1),K(:,2),K(:,3),'.');
end
The code you see above is for a similar problem but not exactly the same.
Most of the time you can do this in a vectorized manner by using ndgrid.
[M, N] = ndgrid(0:5:359, 1:5:360);
X = cosd(M)+cosd(M+N);
Y = sind(M)+sind(M+N);
Z = cosd(M)+sind(M+N);
allZero = (X==0)&(Y==0)&(Z==0); % This ...
X(allZero) = []; % does not ...
Y(allZero) = []; % do ...
Z(allZero) = []; % anything.
plot3(X,Y,Z,'b.');
A little explanation:
The call [M, N] = ndgrid(0:5:359, 1:5:360); generates all combinations, where M is an element of 0:5:359 and N is an element of 1:5:360. This will be in the form of two matrices M and N. If you want you can reshape these matrices to vectors by using M = M(:); N = N(:);, but this isn't needed here.
If you were to have yet another variable, you would use: [M, N, P] = ndgrid(0:5:359, 1:5:360, 10:5:1000).
By the way: The code part where you delete the entry [0,0,0] doesn't do anything here, because this value doesn't appear. I see you only needed it, because you were allocating a lot more memory than you actually needed. Here are two versions of your original code, that are not as good as the ndgrid version, but preferable to your original one:
m = 0:5:359;
n = 1:5:360;
K = zeros(length(m)*length(n), 3);
for i = 1:length(m)
for j = 1:length(n)
nextRow = (i-1)*length(n) + j;
K(nextRow, 1) = cosd(m(i)) + cosd(m(i)+n(j));
K(nextRow, 2) = sind(m(i)) + sind(m(i)+n(j));
K(nextRow, 3) = cosd(m(i)) + sind(m(i)+n(j));
end
end
Or simpler, but a bit slower:
K = [];
for m = 0:5:359
for n = 1:5:360
K(end+1,1:3) = 0;
K(end, 1) = cosd(m)+cosd(m+n);
K(end, 2) = sind(m)+sind(m+n);
K(end, 3) = cosd(m)+sind(m+n);
end
end
Related
I would like to write a Matlab code to calculate the following:
\sum_{k=0}^{N-1} \frac{1}{k!} \sum_{i=0}^{k} {k \choose i}(a-1)^{k-i} a^k
and my code is:
N = 3;
a = [3 4];
for k = 0:N-1
f = 0;
for i = 0:k
f = f + nchoosek(k,i).* a.^k .* (a-1).^(k-i);
end
sumoff = sum(f);
all = (( 1./ (factorial(k))).*sumoff);
end
overall= sum(all);
'all' variable gives different value when it is inside the for loop rather than outside. But I want it to calculate when k = 0:N-1. What am I doing wrong?
Thank you.
The issue is your current code overwrites all on every iteration. Moving it outside the loop also doesn't work because you'll only save the result of the last iteration.
To save the all of every iteration, define all as a vector and then assign each intermediate result into that vector:
N = 3;
a = [3 4];
% preallocate a vector for `all`
all = nan(N-1, 1);
for k = 0:N-1
f = 0;
for i = 0:k
f = f + nchoosek(k,i) .* a.^k .* (a-1).^(k-i);
end
sumoff = sum(f);
% assign your intermediate result into the `all` vector
all(k+1) = ((1./(factorial(k))) .* sumoff);
end
overall = sum(all);
Suppose
x = [x1;x2; ...; xn]
where each xi is a column vector with length l(i). We can set L = sum(l), the total length of x. I would like to generate 2 matrices based on x:
Let's call them A and B. For example, when x only as 2 blocks x1 and x2 then:
A = [x1*x1' zeros(l(1),l(2)); zeros(l(2),l(1)), x2*x2'];
B = [x1 zeros(l(1),1);
zeros(l(2),1), x2];
In the notation of the problem, A is always L by L and B is L by n. I can generate A and B given x using loops but it is tedious. Is there a clever (loop-free) way to generate A and B. I am using MATLAB 2018b but you can assume earlier version of MATLAB if necessary.
I think it is both short and fast:
B = x .* (repelem((1:numel(l)).',l)==(1:numel(l)));
A = B * B.';
If you have large data It is better to use sparse matrix:
B = sparse(1:numel(x), repelem(1:numel(l), l), x);
A = B * B.';
The following should work. In this case I do an inefficient conversion to cell arrays so there may be a more efficient implementation possible.
cuml = [0; cumsum(l(:))];
get_x = #(idx) x((1:l(idx))+cuml(idx));
x_cell = arrayfun(get_x, 1:numel(l), 'UniformOutput', false);
B = blkdiag(x_cell{:});
A = B*B';
Edit
After running some benchmarks I found a direct loop based implementation to be about twice as fast as the cell based approach above.
A = zeros(sum(l));
B = zeros(sum(l), numel(l));
prev = 0;
for idx = 1:numel(l)
xidx = (1:l(idx))+prev;
A(xidx, xidx) = x(xidx,1) * x(xidx,1)';
B(xidx, idx) = x(idx,1);
prev = prev + l(idx);
end
Here's an alternative approach:
s = repelem(1:numel(l), l).';
t = accumarray(s, x, [], #(x){x*x'});
A = blkdiag(t{:});
t = accumarray(s, x, [], #(x){x});
B = blkdiag(t{:});
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)));
I am writing a graphical representation of numerical stability of differential operators and I am having trouble removing a nested for loop. The code loops through all entries in the X,Y, plane and calculates the stability value for each point. This is done by finding the roots of a polynomial of a size dependent on an input variable (length of input vector results in a polynomial 3d matrix of size(m,n,(lenght of input vector)). The main nested for loop is as follows.
for m = 1:length(z2)
for n = 1:length(z1)
pointpoly(1,:) = p(m,n,:);
r = roots(pointpoly);
if isempty(r),r=1e10;end
z(m,n) = max(abs(r));
end
end
The full code of an example numerical method (Trapezoidal Rule) is as follows. Any and all help is appreciated.
alpha = [-1 1];
beta = [.5 .5];
Wind = 2;
Wsize = 500;
if numel(Wind) == 1
Wind(4) = Wind(1);
Wind(3) = -Wind(1);
Wind(2) = Wind(4);
Wind(1) = Wind(3);
end
if numel(Wsize) == 1
Wsize(2) = Wsize;
end
z1 = linspace(Wind(1),Wind(2),Wsize(1));
z2 = linspace(Wind(3),Wind(4),Wsize(2));
[Z1,Z2] = meshgrid(z1,z2);
z = Z1+1i*Z2;
p = zeros(Wsize(2),Wsize(1),length(alpha));
for n = length(alpha):-1:1
p(:,:,(length(alpha)-n+1)) = alpha(n)-z*beta(n);
end
for m = 1:length(z2)
for n = 1:length(z1)
pointpoly(1,:) = p(m,n,:);
r = roots(pointpoly);
if isempty(r),r=1e10;end
z(m,n) = max(abs(r));
end
end
figure()
surf(Z1,Z2,z,'EdgeColor','None');
caxis([0 2])
cmap = jet(255);
cmap((127:129),:) = 0;
colormap(cmap)
view(2);
title(['Alpha Values (',num2str(alpha),') Beta Values (',num2str(beta),')'])
EDIT::
I was able to remove one of the for loops using the reshape command. So;
for m = 1:length(z2)
for n = 1:length(z1)
pointpoly(1,:) = p(m,n,:);
r = roots(pointpoly);
if isempty(r),r=1e10;end
z(m,n) = max(abs(r));
end
end
has now become
gg = reshape(p,[numel(p)/length(alpha) length(alpha)]);
r = zeros(numel(p)/length(alpha),1);
for n = 1:numel(p)/length(alpha)
temp = roots(gg(n,:));
if isempty(temp),temp = 0;end
r(n,1) = max(abs(temp));
end
z = reshape(r,[Wsize(2),Wsize(1)]);
This might be one for loop, but I am still going through the same number of elements. Is there a way to use the roots command on all of my rows at the same time?
This is a follow-up question to How to append an element to an array in MATLAB? That question addressed how to append an element to an array. Two approaches are discussed there:
A = [A elem] % for a row array
A = [A; elem] % for a column array
and
A(end+1) = elem;
The second approach has the obvious advantage of being compatible with both row and column arrays.
However, this question is: which of the two approaches is fastest? My intuition tells me that the second one is, but I'd like some evidence for or against that. Any idea?
The second approach (A(end+1) = elem) is faster
According to the benchmarks below (run with the timeit benchmarking function from File Exchange), the second approach (A(end+1) = elem) is faster and should therefore be preferred.
Interestingly, though, the performance gap between the two approaches is much narrower in older versions of MATLAB than it is in more recent versions.
R2008a
R2013a
Benchmark code
function benchmark
n = logspace(2, 5, 40);
% n = logspace(2, 4, 40);
tf = zeros(size(n));
tg = tf;
for k = 1 : numel(n)
x = rand(round(n(k)), 1);
f = #() append(x);
tf(k) = timeit(f);
g = #() addtoend(x);
tg(k) = timeit(g);
end
figure
hold on
plot(n, tf, 'bo')
plot(n, tg, 'ro')
hold off
xlabel('input size')
ylabel('time (s)')
leg = legend('y = [y, x(k)]', 'y(end + 1) = x(k)');
set(leg, 'Location', 'NorthWest');
end
% Approach 1: y = [y, x(k)];
function y = append(x)
y = [];
for k = 1 : numel(x);
y = [y, x(k)];
end
end
% Approach 2: y(end + 1) = x(k);
function y = addtoend(x)
y = [];
for k = 1 : numel(x);
y(end + 1) = x(k);
end
end
How about this?
function somescript
RStime = timeit(#RowSlow)
CStime = timeit(#ColSlow)
RFtime = timeit(#RowFast)
CFtime = timeit(#ColFast)
function RowSlow
rng(1)
A = zeros(1,2);
for i = 1:1e5
A = [A rand(1,1)];
end
end
function ColSlow
rng(1)
A = zeros(2,1);
for i = 1:1e5
A = [A; rand(1,1)];
end
end
function RowFast
rng(1)
A = zeros(1,2);
for i = 1:1e5
A(end+1) = rand(1,1);
end
end
function ColFast
rng(1)
A = zeros(2,1);
for i = 1:1e5
A(end+1) = rand(1,1);
end
end
end
For my machine, this yields the following timings:
RStime =
30.4064
CStime =
29.1075
RFtime =
0.3318
CFtime =
0.3351
The orientation of the vector does not seem to matter that much, but the second approach is about a factor 100 faster on my machine.
In addition to the fast growing method pointing out above (i.e., A(k+1)), you can also get a speed increase from increasing the array size by some multiple, so that allocations become less as the size increases.
On my laptop using R2014b, a conditional doubling of size results in about a factor of 6 speed increase:
>> SO
GATime =
0.0288
DWNTime =
0.0048
In a real application, the size of A would needed to be limited to the needed size or the unfilled results filtered out in some way.
The Code for the SO function is below. I note that I switched to cos(k) since, for some unknown reason, there is a large difference in performance between rand() and rand(1,1) on my machine. But I don't think this affects the outcome too much.
function [] = SO()
GATime = timeit(#GrowAlways)
DWNTime = timeit(#DoubleWhenNeeded)
end
function [] = DoubleWhenNeeded()
A = 0;
sizeA = 1;
for k = 1:1E5
if ((k+1) > sizeA)
A(2*sizeA) = 0;
sizeA = 2*sizeA;
end
A(k+1) = cos(k);
end
end
function [] = GrowAlways()
A = 0;
for k = 1:1E5
A(k+1) = cos(k);
end
end