I'm trying to do in Matlab:
X = X*-1;
this syntax is a bit annoying, is there a way to do this some other way (like in c++ : x*=-1)
Thank you
Unfortunately there are no increment and compound assignment operators in Matlab. I also remember reading posts by employees at Mathworks saying that they don't intend to add such operators to Matlab.
Steve Lord's reply to the following question illustrates the difficulties involved (way down, reply nr 10 or so): http://www.mathworks.com/matlabcentral/newsreader/view_thread/107451
There is another way! ;-)
X = -X;
Seriously though, I think it's just a matter of habit. There's nothing inherently wrong with that syntax, you are just used to do it differently.
Related
Matlab offers multiple algorithms for solving Linear Programs.
For example Matlab R2012b offers: 'active-set', 'trust-region-reflective', 'interior-point', 'interior-point-convex', 'levenberg-marquardt', 'trust-region-dogleg', 'lm-line-search', or 'sqp'.
But other versions of Matlab support different algorithms.
I would like to run a loop over all algorithms that are supported by the users Matlab-Version. And I would like them to be ordered like the recommendation order of Matlab.
I would like to implement something like this:
i=1;
x=[];
while (isempty(x))
options=optimset(options,'Algorithm',Here_I_need_a_list_of_Algorithms(i))
x = linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub,x0,options);
end
In 99% this code should be equivalent to
x = linprog(f,A,b,Aeq,beq,lb,ub,x0,options);
but sometimes the algorithm gives back an empty array because of numerical problems (exitflag -4). If there is a chance that one of the other algorithms can find a solution I would like to try them too.
So my question is:
Is there a possibility to automatically get a list of all linprog-algorithms that are supported by the installed Matlab-version ordered like Matlab recommends them.
I think looping through all algorithms can make sense in other scenarios too. For example when you need very precise data and have a lot of time, you could run them all and than evaluate which gives the best results.
Or one would like to loop through all algorithms, if one wants to find which algorithms is the best for LPs with a certain structure.
There's no automatic way to do this as far as I know. If you really want to do it, the easiest thing to do would be to go to the online documentation, and check through previous versions (online documentation is available for old versions, not just the most recent release), and construct some variables like this:
r2012balgos = {'active-set', 'trust-region-reflective', 'interior-point', 'interior-point-convex', 'levenberg-marquardt', 'trust-region-dogleg', 'lm-line-search', 'sqp'};
...
r2017aalgos = {...};
v = ver('matlab');
switch v.Release
case '(R2012b)'
algos = r2012balgos;
....
case '(R2017a)'
algos = r2017aalgos;
end
% loop through each of the algorithms
Seems boring, but it should only take you about 30 minutes.
There's a reason MathWorks aren't making this as easy as you might hope, though, because what you're asking for isn't a great idea.
It is possible to construct artificial problems where one algorithm finds a solution and the others don't. But in practice, typically if the recommended algorithm doesn't find a solution this doesn't indicate that you should switch algorithms, it indicates that your problem wasn't well-formulated, and you should consider modifying it, perhaps by modifying some constraints, or reformulating the objective function.
And after all, why stop with just looping through the alternative algorithms? Why not also loop through lots of values for other options such as constraint tolerances, optimality tolerances, maximum number of function evaluations, etc.? These may have just as much likelihood of affecting things as a choice of algorithm. And soon you're running an optimisation algorithm to search through the space of meta-parameters for your original optimisation.
That's not a great plan - probably better to just choose one of the recommended algorithms, stick to that, and if things don't work out then focus on improving your formulation of the problems rather than over-tweaking the optimisation itself.
I want to find a faster code than using P = nchoosek(1:100,i), which is located in a loop, and repeated i times in my code.
nchoosek(1:100,10) is absolutely vast, far bigger than any typical machine could hold in memory.
The MATLAB documentation for nchoosek says
C = nchoosek(v,k) is only practical for situations where length(v) is less than about 15.
You're not really going to be able to do this.
I found that VChoosek(v,k) is much faster than nchoosek.
so I have the following Integral that i need to do numerically:
Int[Exp(0.5*(aCosx + bSinx + cCos2x + dSin2x))] x=0..2Pi
The problem is that the output at any given value of x can be extremely large, e^2000, so larger than I can deal with in double precision.
I havn't had much luck googling for the following, how do you deal with large numbers in fortran, not high precision, i dont care if i know it to beyond double precision, and at the end i'll just be taking the log, but i just need to be able to handle the large numbers untill i can take the log..
Are there integration packes that have the ability to handle arbitrarily large numbers? Mathematica clearly can.. so there must be something like this out there.
Cheers
This is probably an extended comment rather than an answer but here goes anyway ...
As you've already observed Fortran isn't equipped, out of the box, with the facility for handling such large numbers as e^2000. I think you have 3 options.
Use mathematics to reduce your problem to one which does (or a number of related ones which do) fall within the numerical range that your Fortran compiler can compute.
Use Mathematica or one of the other computer algebra systems (eg Maple, SAGE, Maxima). All (I think) of these can be integrated into a Fortran program (with varying degrees of difficulty and integration).
Use a library for high-precision (often called either arbitray-precision or multiple-precision too) arithmetic. Your favourite search engine will turn up a number of these for you, some written in Fortran (and therefore easy to integrate), some written in C/C++ or other languages (and therefore slightly harder to integrate). You might start your search at Lawrence Berkeley or the GNU bignum library.
(Yes I know that I wrote that you have 3 options, but your question suggests that you aren't ready to consider this yet) You could write your own high-/arbitrary-/multiple-precision functions. Fortran provides everything you need to construct such a library, there is a lot of work already done in the field to learn from, and it might be something of interest to you.
In practice it generally makes sense to apply as much mathematics as possible to a problem before resorting to a computer, that process can not only assist in solving the problem but guide your selection or construction of a program to solve what's left of the problem.
I agree with High Peformance Mark that the best option here numerically is to use analytics to scale or simplify the result first.
I will mention that if you do want to brute force it, gfortran (as of 4.6, with the libquadmath library) has support for quadruple precision reals, which you can use by selecting the appropriate kind. As long as your answers (and the intermediate results!) don't get too much bigger than what you're describing, that may work, but it will generally be much slower than double precision.
This requires looking deeper at the problem you are trying to solve and the behavior of the underlying mathematics. To add to the good advice already provided by Mark and Jonathan, consider expanding the exponential and trig functions into Taylor series and truncating to the desired level of precision.
Also, take a step back and ask why you are trying to accomplish by calculating this value. As an example, I recently had to debug why I was getting outlandish results from a property correlation which was calculating vapor pressure of a fluid to see if condensation was occurring. I spent a long time trying to understand what was wrong with the temperature being fed into the correlation until I realized the case causing the error was a simulation of vapor detonation. The problem was not in the numerics but in the logic of checking for condensation during a literal explosion; physically, a condensation check made no sense. The real problem was the code was asking an unnecessary question; it already had the answer.
I highly recommend Forman Acton's Numerical Methods That (Usually) Work and Real Computing Made Real. Both focus on problems like this and suggest techniques to tame ill-mannered computations.
Although many of you will have a decent idea of what I'm aiming at, just from reading the title -- allow me a simple introduction still.
I have a Fortran program - it consists of a program, some internal subroutines, 7 modules with its own procedures, and ... uhmm, that's it.
Without going into much detail, for I don't think it's necessary at this point, what would be the easiest way to use MATLAB's plotting features (mainly plot(x,y) with some customizations) as an interactive part of my program ? For now I'm using some of my own custom plotting routines (based on HPGL and Calcomp's routines), but just as part of an exercise on my part, I'd like to see where this could go and how would it work (is it even possible what I'm suggesting?). Also, how much effort would it take on my part ?
I know this subject has been rather extensively described in many "tutorials" on the net, but for some reason I have trouble finding the really simple yet illustrative introductory ones. So if anyone can post an example or two, simple ones, I'd be really grateful. Or just take me by the hand and guide me through one working example.
platform: IVF 11.something :) on Win XP SP2, Matlab 2008b
The easiest way would be to have your Fortran program write to file, and have your Matlab program read those files for the information you want to plot. I do most of my number-crunching on Linux, so I'm not entirely sure how Windows handles one process writing a file and another reading it at the same time.
That's a bit of a kludge though, so you might want to think about using Matlab to call the Fortran program (or parts of it) and get data directly for plotting. In this case you'll want to investigate Creating Fortran MEX Files in the Matlab documentation. This is relatively straightforward to do and would serve your needs if you were happy to use Matlab to drive the process and Fortran to act as a compute service. I'd look in the examples distributed with Matlab for simple Fortran MEX files.
Finally, you could call Matlab from your Fortran program, search the documentation for Calling the Matlab Engine. It's a little more difficult for me to see how this might fit your needs, and it's not something I'm terribly familiar with.
If you post again with more detail I may be able to provide more specific tips, but you should probably start rolling your sleeves up and diving in to MEX files.
Continuing the discussion of DISLIN as a solution, with an answer that won't fit into a comment...
#M. S. B. - hello. I apologize for writing in your answer, but these comments are much too short, and answering a question in the form of an answer with an answer is ... anyway ...
There is the Quick Plot feature of DISLIN -- routine QPLOT needs only three arguments to plot a curve: X array, Y array and number N. See Chapter 16 of the manual. Plus only several additional calls to select output device and label the axes. I haven't used this, so I don't know how good the auto-scaling is.
Yes, I know of Quickplot, and it's related routines, but it is too fixed for my needs (cannot change anything), and yes, it's autoscaling is somewhat quircky. Also, too big margins inside the graf.
Or if you want to use the power of GRAF to setup your graph box, there is subroutine GAXPAR to automatically generate recommended values. -2 as the first argument to LABDIG automatically determines the number of digits in tick-mark labels.
Have you tried the routines?
Sorry, I cannot find the GAXPAR routine you're reffering to in dislin's index. Are you sure it is called exactly like that ?
Reply by M.S.B.: Yes, I am sure about the spelling of GAXPAR. It is the last routine in Chapter 4 of the DISLIN 9.5 PDF manual. Perhaps it is a new routine? Also there is another path to automatic scaling: SETSCL -- see Chapter 6.
So far, what I've been doing (apart from some "duck tape" solutions) is
use dislin; implicit none
real, dimension(5) :: &
x = [.5, 2., 3., 4., 5.], &
y = [10., 22., 34., 43., 15.]
real :: xa, xe, xor, xstp, &
ya, ye, yor, ystp
call setpag('da4p'); call metafl('xwin');
call disini(); call winkey('return');
call setscl(x,size(x),'x');
call setscl(y,size(y),'y')
call axslen(1680,2376) !(8/10)*2100 and 2970, respectively
call setgrf('name','name','line','line')
call incmrk(1); call hsymbl(3);
call graf(xa, xe, xor, xstp, ya, ye, yor, ystp); call curve(x,y,size(x))
call disfin()
end
which will put the extreme values right on the axis. Do you know perhaps how could I go to have one "major tick margin" on the outside, as to put some area between the curve and the axis (while still keeping setscl's effects) ?
Even if you don't like the built-in auto-scaling, if you are already using DISLIN, rolling your own auto-scaling will be easier than calling Fortran from MATLAB. You can use the Fortran intrinsic functions minval and maxval to find the smallest and largest values in the data, than write a subroutine to round outwards to "nice" round values. Similarly, a subroutine to decide on the tick-mark spacing.
This is actually not so easy to accomplish (and ideas to prove me wrong will be gladly appreciated). Or should I say, it is easy if you know the rough range in which your values will lie. But if you don't, and you don't know
whether your values will lie in the range of 13-34 or in the 1330-3440, then ...
... if I'm on the wrong track completely here, please, explain if you ment something different. My english is somewhat lacking, so I can only hope the above is understandable.
Inside a subroutine to determine round graph start/end values, you could scale the actual min/max values to always be between 1 and 10, then have a table to pick nice round values, then unscale back to the correct range.
--
Dump Matlab because its proprietary, expensive, bloated/slow and codes are not easy to parallelize.
What you should do is use something on the lines of DISLIN, PLplot, GINO, gnuplotfortran etc.
I have written a Perl script that performs many one-sample t-tests. I get thousands of t-statistics with their degrees of freedom (df). I need to upgrade the script to also return their p-values (there are too many to look them up manually in a table). Is there some kind of formula I can use for this with the t-statistic and d.f as input? I hope someone can help me with this, many thanks in advance!
A.A.
Using Statistics::Distributions seems pretty straightforward:
print Statistics::Distributions::tprob($dof,$tstat);
A search of MetaCPAN reveals the following:
https://metacpan.org/pod/Statistics::Distributions
If you are doing a two-tailed test, then your p-value = 2*P(T > t), where t is your calculated test statistic. So essentially, you need a way to model the T-dist in order to integrate(T-dist from t to INFINITY). Here is a demo: http://www.stat.tamu.edu/~west/applets/tdemo.html
I'm not familiar with Perl and its libraries, but hopefully this gets you started. You can write a rudimentary integrator and check some values to make sure that it is accurate enough.