I am trying to implement a simplex algorithm following the rules I was given at my optimization course. The problem is
min c'*x s.t.
Ax = b
x >= 0
All vectors are assumes to be columns, ' denotes the transpose. The algorithm should also return the solution to dual LP. The rules to follow are:
Here, A_J denotes columns from A with indices in J and x_J, x_K denotes elements of vector x with indices in J or K respectively. Vector a_s is column s of matrix A.
Now I do not understand how this algorithm takes care of condition x >= 0, but I decided to give it a try and follow it step by step. I used Matlab for this and got the following code.
X = zeros(n, 1);
Y = zeros(m, 1);
% i. Choose starting basis J and K = {1,2,...,n} \ J
J = [4 5 6] % for our problem
K = setdiff(1:n, J)
% this while is for goto
while 1
% ii. Solve system A_J*\bar{x}_J = b.
xbar = A(:,J) \ b
% iii. Calculate value of criterion function with respect to current x_J.
fval = c(J)' * xbar
% iv. Calculate dual solution y from A_J^T*y = c_J.
y = A(:,J)' \ c(J)
% v. Calculate \bar{c}^T = c_K^T - u^T A_K. If \bar{c}^T >= 0, we have
% found the optimal solution. If not, select the smallest s \in K, such
% that c_s < 0. Variable x_s enters basis.
cbar = c(K)' - c(J)' * inv(A(:,J)) * A(:,K)
cbar = cbar'
tmp = findnegative(cbar)
if tmp == -1 % we have found the optimal solution since cbar >= 0
X(J) = xbar;
Y = y;
FVAL = fval;
return
end
s = findnegative(c, K) %x_s enters basis
% vi. Solve system A_J*\bar{a} = a_s. If \bar{a} <= 0, then the problem is
% unbounded.
abar = A(:,J) \ A(:,s)
if findpositive(abar) == -1 % we failed to find positive number
disp('The problem is unbounded.')
return;
end
% vii. Calculate v = \bar{x}_J / \bar{a} and find the smallest rho \in J,
% such that v_rho > 0. Variable x_rho exits basis.
v = xbar ./ abar
rho = J(findpositive(v))
% viii. Update J and K and goto ii.
J = setdiff(J, rho)
J = union(J, s)
K = setdiff(K, s)
K = union(K, rho)
end
Functions findpositive(x) and findnegative(x, S) return the first index of positive or negative value in x. S is the set of indices, over which we look at. If S is omitted, whole vector is checked. Semicolons are omitted for debugging purposes.
The problem I tested this code on is
c = [-3 -1 -3 zeros(1,3)];
A = [2 1 1; 1 2 3; 2 2 1];
A = [A eye(3)];
b = [2; 5; 6];
The reason for zeros(1,3) and eye(3) is that the problem is inequalities and we need slack variables. I have set starting basis to [4 5 6] because the notes say that starting basis should be set to slack variables.
Now, what happens during execution is that on first run of while, variable with index 1 enters basis (in Matlab, indices go from 1 on) and 4 exits it and that is reasonable. On the second run, 2 enters the basis (since it is the smallest index such that c(idx) < 0 and 1 leaves it. But now on the next iteration, 1 enters basis again and I understand why it enters, because it is the smallest index, such that c(idx) < 0. But here the looping starts. I assume that should not have happened, but following the rules I cannot see how to prevent this.
I guess that there has to be something wrong with my interpretation of the notes but I just cannot see where I am wrong. I also remember that when we solved LP on the paper, we were updating our subjective function on each go, since when a variable entered basis, we removed it from the subjective function and expressed that variable in subj. function with the expression from one of the equalities, but I assume that is different algorithm.
Any remarks or help will be highly appreciated.
The problem has been solved. Turned out that the point 7 in the notes was wrong. Instead, point 7 should be
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')
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.
I have encountered an out of memory problem when using TriScatteredInterp. I have a huge amount of data to be interpolated, and when I ask for an interpolation of a single point MATLAB returns an error.
x = rand(600000,1)*4-2;
y = rand(600000,1)*4-2;
z = rand(600000,1)*4-2;
T=rand(600000,1)*20-2;
>> F=TriScatteredInterp(x, y, z, T)
F =
TriScatteredInterp
Properties:
X: [600000x3 double]
V: [600000x1 double]
Method: 'linear'
F(.5773,1.6473,1.3403)
Error using TriScatteredInterp/subsref
Out of memory. Type HELP MEMORY for your
options.
I would like to know if someone has experienced a similar issue or if there is any possibility to enhance the code by spliting the data or something.
Here is a way to split the data as you suggested:
%% Original data
x = rand(600000,1)*4-2;
y = rand(600000,1)*4-2;
z = rand(600000,1)*4-2;
T=rand(600000,1)*20-2;
%% No data splitting
F=TriScatteredInterp(x, y, z, T);
tic
F(.5773,1.6473,1.3403)
toc
%% Split into 8 blocks
blockBorders = -2:2:2;
F = cell(8,1);
ii = 1;
for ix = 1:2
for iy = 1:2
for iz = 1:2
inBlock = (x >= blockBorders(ix)) & (x < blockBorders(ix+1)) &...
(y >= blockBorders(iy)) & (y < blockBorders(iy+1)) &...
(z >= blockBorders(iz)) & (z < blockBorders(iz+1));
F{ii} = TriScatteredInterp(x(inBlock), y(inBlock), z(inBlock), T(inBlock));
ii = ii + 1;
end
end
end
tic
p = [.5773,1.6473,1.3403];
ix = find((p(1) >= blockBorders(1:end-1)) & (p(1) < blockBorders(2:end)));
iy = find((p(2) >= blockBorders(1:end-1)) & (p(2) < blockBorders(2:end)));
iz = find((p(3) >= blockBorders(1:end-1)) & (p(3) < blockBorders(2:end)));
ii = ix*4 + iy*2 + iz - 6;
F{ii}(p(1), p(2), p(3));
toc
My machine does not reproduce your memory issue, but shows a runtime difference: 0.246633 seconds for the first method and 0.141250 seconds for the second method. This is indicative of the smaller amount of data being processed, and could possibly solve your problem.
You can always split your data even more if it increases in size, but be wary that you are in effect interpolating over a smaller part of xyz space and this could possibly be problematic, depending on the nature of your data. In fact, the implementation given here is problematic too because there is no overlap between interpolation blocks, so points near block borders are probably interpolated poorly. However this is a start and a possible way to avoid memory and runtime issues.
I've searched a lot but didn't find any solution to my problem, could you please help me vectorizing (or just a way to make it way faster) these loops ?
% n is the size of C
h = 1/(n-1)
dt = 1e-6;
a = 1e-2;
F=zeros(n,n);
F2=zeros(n,n);
C2=zeros(n,n);
t = 0.0;
for iter=1:12000
F2=F.^3-F;
for i=1:n
for j=1:n
F2(i,j)=F2(i,j)-(C(ij(i-1),j)+C(ij(i+1),j)+C(i,ij(j-1))+C(i,ij(j+1))-4*C(i,j)).*(a.^2)./(h.^2);
end
end
F=F2;
for i=1:n
for j=1:n
C2(i,j)=C(i,j)+(F(ij(i-1),j)+F(ij(i+1),j)+F(i,ij(j-1))+F(i,ij(j+1))-4*F(i,j)).*dt./(h^2);
end
end
C=C2;
t = t + dt;
end
function i=ij(i) %Just to have a matrix as loop (the n+1 th cases are the 1 th and 0 the 0th are nth)
if i==0
i=n;
return
elseif i==n+1
i=1;
end
return
end
thanks a lot
EDIT: Found an answer, it was totally ridiculous and I was searching way too far
%n is still the size of C
h = 1/((n-1))
dt = 1e-6;
a = 1e-2;
F=zeros(n,n);
var1=(a^2)/(h^2); %to make a bit less calculus
var2=dt/(h^2); % the same
t = 0.0;
for iter=1:12000
F=C.^3-C-var1*(C([n 1:n-1],1:n) + C([2:n 1], 1:n) + C(1:n, [n 1:n-1]) + C(1:n, [2:n 1]) - 4*C);
C = C + var2*(F([n 1:n-1], 1:n) + F([2:n 1], 1:n) + F(1:n, [n 1:n-1]) + F(1:n,[2:n 1]) - 4*F);
t = t + dt;
end
Found an answer, it was totally ridiculous and I was searching way too far
%n is still the size of C
h = 1/((n-1))
dt = 1e-6;
a = 1e-2;
F=zeros(n,n);
var1=(a^2)/(h^2); %to make a bit less calculus
var2=dt/(h^2); % the same
prev = [n 1:n-1];
next = [2:n 1];
t = 0.0;
for iter=1:12000
F = C.*C.*C - C - var1*(C(:,next)+C(:,prev)+C(next,:)+C(prev,:)-4*C);
C = C + var2*(F(:,next)+F(:,prev)+F(next,:)+F(prev,:)-4*F);
t = t + dt;
end
The behavior of the inner loop looks like a 2-dimensional circular convolution. That's the same as multiplication in the FFT domain. Subtraction is invariant across a linear operation such as FFT.
You'll want to use the fft2 and ifft2 functions.
Once you do that, I think you'll find that the repeated convolution can be eliminated by raising the convolution kernel (element-wise) to the power iter. If that optimization is correct, I'm predicting a speedup of 5 orders of magnitude.
You can replace for example C(ij(i-1),j) by using circshift(C,[1,0]) or circshift(C,[1,0]) (i can't figure out witch one of two is correct)
http://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/circshift.htm