Fresnel - Kirchoff integral in paraxial approximation - matlab

I'd like to integrate this equation numerically.
b = 62.5*10^-6;
a = 4*10^-6;
n_co = 1.473;
n_cl = n_co - 0.016;
n_s = 1.37868*10^-5;
L = 457.9*10^-9;
k = 2*%pi/L;
z = 0.4 ;
x =0.3;
int(exp(-1i*(2*k*(n_cl-n_s)*(sqrt(b^2 - x_p.^2))+2*k*(n_co-n_cl)*(sqrt(a^2-x_p.^2))))*exp(1i*((x-x_p).^2)/2*z),-a,a);
so what should i do to get result numerically. Since it contains exponential and complex functions hard to evaluate.
Thanks in advance

You can integrate a function f in the interval (from, to) with integral(f, from, to). For example, you can compute the value of the integral of exp(-x^2) from x=1 to 5 with:
f = #(x) exp(-x^2);
integral(f, 1, 5)

Related

How to use matlab to quickly judge whether a function is convex?

For example, FX = x ^ 2 + sin (x)
Just for curiosity, I don't want to use the CVX toolbox to do this.
You can check this within some interval [a,b] by checking if the second derivative is nonnegative. For this you have to define a vector of x-values, find the numerical second derivative and check whether it is not too negative:
a = 0;
b = 1;
margin = 1e-5;
point_count = 100;
f=#(x) x.^2 + sin(x);
x = linspace(a, b, point_count)
is_convex = all(diff(x, 2) > -margin);
Since this is a numerical test, you need to adjust the parameter to the properties of the function, that is if the function does wild things on a small scale we might not be able to pick it up. E.g. with the parameters above the test will falsely report the function f=#(x)sin(99.5*2*pi*x-3) as convex.
clear
syms x real
syms f(x) d(x) d1(x)
f = x^2 + sin(x)
d = diff(f,x,2)==0
d1 = diff(f,x,2)
expSolution = solve(d, x)
if size(expSolution,1) == 0
if eval(subs(d1,x,0))>0
disp("condition 1- the graph is concave upward");
else
disp("condition 2 - the graph is concave download");
end
else
disp("condition 3 -- not certain")
end

I cant get the result of y

I have this questions but my result is different with the exact result what is the wrong?
this is what i tried.
x = 2;
z = 3;
y = x^2*x*z+12*x*z+((exp(x)/log(x*z)-log(x*z)*nthroot(x*z,2)))*nthroot(x*z,3);
result of y is 95.5185 not equal to -21.455
MATLAB Logarithm Conventions
Breaking up long equations into separate terms is useful for debugging. Here the case was the logarithmic functions that were used.
log → log10() (base-10 logarithm)
ln → log() (natural logarithm)
x = 2;
z = 3;
Term_1 = (x^2)*x*z;
Term_2 = 12*x*z;
Term_3 = (exp(x))/(log(x*z) - log10(x*z)*sqrt(x*z));
Term_4 = nthroot(x*z,3);
y = Term_1 + Term_2 + Term_3*Term_4;
y
Ran using MATLAB R2019b

How to solve for the upper limit of an integral using Newton's method?

I want to write a program that makes use of Newtons Method:
To estimate the x of this integral:
Where X is the total distance.
I have functions to calculate the Time it takes to arrive at a certain distance by using the trapezoid method for numerical integration. Without using trapz.
function T = time_to_destination(x, route, n)
h=(x-0)/n;
dx = 0:h:x;
y = (1./(velocity(dx,route)));
Xk = dx(2:end)-dx(1:end-1);
Yk = y(2:end)+y(1:end-1);
T = 0.5*sum(Xk.*Yk);
end
and it fetches its values for velocity, through ppval of a cubic spline interpolation between a set of data points. Where extrapolated values should not be fetcheable.
function [v] = velocity(x, route)
load(route);
if all(x >= distance_km(1))==1 & all(x <= distance_km(end))==1
estimation = spline(distance_km, speed_kmph);
v = ppval(estimation, x);
else
error('Bad input, please choose a new value')
end
end
Plot of the velocity spline if that's interesting to you evaluated at:
dx= 1:0.1:65
Now I want to write a function that can solve for distance travelled after a certain given time, using newton's method without fzero / fsolve . But I have no idea how to solve for the upper bound of a integral.
According to the fundamental theorem of calculus I suppose the derivative of the integral is the function inside the integral, which is what I've tried to recreate as Time_to_destination / (1/velocity)
I added the constant I want to solve for to time to destination so its
(Time_to_destination - (input time)) / (1/velocity)
Not sure if I'm doing that right.
EDIT: Rewrote my code, works better now but my stopcondition for Newton Raphson doesnt seem to converge to zero. I also tried to implement the error from the trapezoid integration ( ET ) but not sure if I should bother implementing that yet. Also find the route file in the bottom.
Stop condition and error calculation of Newton's Method:
Error estimation of trapezoid:
Function x = distance(T, route)
n=180
route='test.mat'
dGuess1 = 50;
dDistance = T;
i = 1;
condition = inf;
while condition >= 1e-4 && 300 >= i
i = i + 1 ;
dGuess2 = dGuess1 - (((time_to_destination(dGuess1, route,n))-dDistance)/(1/(velocity(dGuess1, route))))
if i >= 2
ET =(time_to_destination(dGuess1, route, n/2) - time_to_destination(dGuess1, route, n))/3;
condition = abs(dGuess2 - dGuess1)+ abs(ET);
end
dGuess1 = dGuess2;
end
x = dGuess2
Route file: https://drive.google.com/open?id=18GBhlkh5ZND1Ejh0Muyt1aMyK4E2XL3C
Observe that the Newton-Raphson method determines the roots of the function. I.e. you need to have a function f(x) such that f(x)=0 at the desired solution.
In this case you can define f as
f(x) = Time(x) - t
where t is the desired time. Then by the second fundamental theorem of calculus
f'(x) = 1/Velocity(x)
With these functions defined the implementation becomes quite straightforward!
First, we define a simple Newton-Raphson function which takes anonymous functions as arguments (f and f') as well as an initial guess x0.
function x = newton_method(f, df, x0)
MAX_ITER = 100;
EPSILON = 1e-5;
x = x0;
fx = f(x);
iter = 0;
while abs(fx) > EPSILON && iter <= MAX_ITER
x = x - fx / df(x);
fx = f(x);
iter = iter + 1;
end
end
Then we can invoke our function as follows
t_given = 0.3; % e.g. we want to determine distance after 0.3 hours.
n = 180;
route = 'test.mat';
f = #(x) time_to_destination(x, route, n) - t_given;
df = #(x) 1/velocity(x, route);
distance_guess = 50;
distance = newton_method(f, df, distance_guess);
Result
>> distance
distance = 25.5877
Also, I rewrote your time_to_destination and velocity functions as follows. This version of time_to_destination uses all the available data to make a more accurate estimate of the integral. Using these functions the method seems to converge faster.
function t = time_to_destination(x, d, v)
% x is scalar value of destination distance
% d and v are arrays containing measured distance and velocity
% Assumes d is strictly increasing and d(1) <= x <= d(end)
idx = d < x;
if ~any(idx)
t = 0;
return;
end
v1 = interp1(d, v, x);
t = trapz([d(idx); x], 1./[v(idx); v1]);
end
function v = velocity(x, d, v)
v = interp1(d, v, x);
end
Using these new functions requires that the definitions of the anonymous functions are changed slightly.
t_given = 0.3; % e.g. we want to determine distance after 0.3 hours.
load('test.mat');
f = #(x) time_to_destination(x, distance_km, speed_kmph) - t_given;
df = #(x) 1/velocity(x, distance_km, speed_kmph);
distance_guess = 50;
distance = newton_method(f, df, distance_guess);
Because the integral is estimated more accurately the solution is slightly different
>> distance
distance = 25.7771
Edit
The updated stopping condition can be implemented as a slight modification to the newton_method function. We shouldn't expect the trapezoid rule error to go to zero so I omit that.
function x = newton_method(f, df, x0)
MAX_ITER = 100;
TOL = 1e-5;
x = x0;
iter = 0;
dx = inf;
while dx > TOL && iter <= MAX_ITER
x_prev = x;
x = x - f(x) / df(x);
dx = abs(x - x_prev);
iter = iter + 1;
end
end
To check our answer we can plot the time vs. distance and make sure our estimate falls on the curve.
...
distance = newton_method(f, df, distance_guess);
load('test.mat');
t = zeros(size(distance_km));
for idx = 1:numel(distance_km)
t(idx) = time_to_destination(distance_km(idx), distance_km, speed_kmph);
end
plot(t, distance_km); hold on;
plot([t(1) t(end)], [distance distance], 'r');
plot([t_given t_given], [distance_km(1) distance_km(end)], 'r');
xlabel('time');
ylabel('distance');
axis tight;
One of the main issues with my code was that n was too low, the error of the trapezoidal sum, estimation of my integral, was too high for the newton raphson method to converge to a very small number.
Here was my final code for this problem:
function x = distance(T, route)
load(route)
n=10e6;
x = mean(distance_km);
i = 1;
maxiter=100;
tol= 5e-4;
condition=inf
fx = #(x) time_to_destination(x, route,n);
dfx = #(x) 1./velocity(x, route);
while condition > tol && i <= maxiter
i = i + 1 ;
Guess2 = x - ((fx(x) - T)/(dfx(x)))
condition = abs(Guess2 - x)
x = Guess2;
end
end

Series expansion of a function about infinity - how to return coefficients of series as a Matlab array?

This question is connected to this one. Suppose again the following code:
syms x
f = 1/(x^2+4*x+9)
Now taylor allows the function f to be expanded about infinity:
ts = taylor(f,x,inf,'Order',100)
But the following code
c = coeffs(ts)
produces errors, because the series does not contain positive powers of x (it contains negative powers of x).
In such a case, what code should be used?
Since the Taylor Expansion around infinity was likely performed with the substitution y = 1/x and expanded around 0, I would explicitly make that substitution to make the power positive for use on coeffs:
syms x y
f = 1/(x^2+4x+9);
ts = taylor(f,x,inf,'Order',100);
[c,ty] = coeffs(subs(ts,x,1/y),y);
tx = subs(ty,y,1/x);
The output from taylor is not a multivariate polynomial, so coeffs won't work in this case. One thing you can try is using collect (you may get the same or similar result from using simplify):
syms x
f = 1/(x^2 + 4*x + 9);
ts = series(f,x,Inf,'Order',5) % 4-th order Puiseux series of f about 0
c = collect(ts)
which returns
ts =
1/x^2 - 4/x^3 + 7/x^4 + 8/x^5 - 95/x^6
c =
(x^4 - 4*x^3 + 7*x^2 + 8*x - 95)/x^6
Then you can use numden to extract the numerator and denominator from either c or ts:
[n,d] = numden(ts)
which returns the following polynomials:
n =
x^4 - 4*x^3 + 7*x^2 + 8*x - 95
d =
x^6
coeffs can then be used on the numerator. You may find other functions listed here helpful as well.

How to write/code several functions as one

I am trying to write a line composed of two segments as a single equation in :
y = m1*x + c1 , for x<=x1
y = m2*x + c2 , for x>=x1
My questions are:
How can I write the function of this combined line as a single equation?
How can I write multiple functions (valid in separate regions of a linear parameter space) as a single equation?
Please explain both how to express this mathematically and how to program this in general and in Matlab specifically.
You can write this equation as a single line by using the Heaviside step function, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviside_step_function.
Combining two functions into one:
In fact, what you are trying to do is
f(x) = a(x) (for x < x1)
f(x) = q (for x = x1), where q = a(x1) = b(x1)
f(x) = b(x) (for x > x1)
The (half-maximum) Heaviside function is defined as
H(x) = 0 (for x < 0)
H(x) = 0.5 (for x = 0)
H(x) = 1 (for x > 0)
Hence, your function will be
f(x) = H(x1-x) * a(c) + H(x-x1) * b(x)
and, therefore,
f(x) = H(x1-x) * (m1*x+c1) + H(x-x1) * (m2x+c2)
If you want to implement this, note that many programming languages will allow you to write something like
f(x) = (x<x1)?a(x):b(x)
which means if x<x1, then return value a(x), else return b(x), or in your case:
f(x) = (x<x1)?(m1*x+c1):(m2x+c2)
Matlab implementation:
In Matlab, you can write simple functions such as
a = #(x) m1.*x+c1,
b = #(x) m2.*x+c2,
assuming that you have previously defined m1, m2, and c1, c2.
There are several ways to using/implementing the Heaviside function
If you have the Symbolic Math Toolbox for Matlab, you can directly use heaviside() as a function.
#AndrasDeak (see comments below) pointed out that you can write your own half-maximum Heaviside function H in Matlab by entering
iif = #(varargin) varargin{2 * find([varargin{1:2:end}], 1, 'first')}();
H = #(x) iif(x<0,0,x>0,1,true,0.5);
If you want a continuous function that approximates the Heaviside function, you can use a logistic function H defined as
H = #(x) 1./(1+exp(-100.*x));
Independently of your implementation of the Heaviside function H, you can, create a one-liner in the following way (I am using x1=0 for simplicity) :
a = #(x) 2.*x + 3;
b = #(x) -1.5.*x + 3;
Which allows you to write your original function as a one-liner:
f = #(x) H(-x).*a(x) + H(x).*b(x);
You can then plot this function, for example from -10 to 10 by writing plot(-10:10, f(-10:10)) you will get the plot below.
Generalization:
Imagine you have
f(x) = a(x) (for x < x1)
f(x) = q (for x = x1), where q = a(x1) = b(x1)
f(x) = b(x) (for x1 < x < x2)
f(x) = r (for x = x2), where r = b(x2) = c(x2)
f(x) = c(x) (for x2 < x < x3)
f(x) = s (for x = x2), where s = c(x3) = d(x3)
f(x) = d(x) (for x3 < x)
By multiplying Heaviside functions, you can now determine zones where specific functions will be computed.
f(x) = H(x1-x)*a(c) + H(x-x1)*H(x2-x)*b(x) + H(x-x2)*H(x3-x)*c(x) + H(x-x3)*d(x)
PS: just realized that one of the comments above talks about the Heaviside function, too. Kudos to #AndrasDeak .