i am trying to calculate the inverse fourier transform of the vector XRECW. for some reason i get a vector of NANs.
please help!!
t = -2:1/100:2;
x = ((2/5)*sin(5*pi*t))./((1/25)-t.^2);
w = -20*pi:0.01*pi:20*pi;
Hw = (exp(j*pi.*(w./(10*pi)))./(sinc(w./(10*pi)))).*(heaviside(w+5*pi)-heaviside(w-5*pi));%low pass filter
xzohw = 0;
for q=1:20:400
xzohw = xzohw + x(q).*(2./w).*sin(0.1.*w).*exp(-j.*w*0.2*((q-1)/20)+0.5);%calculating fourier transform of xzoh
end
xzohw = abs(xzohw);
xrecw = abs(xzohw.*Hw);%filtering the fourier transform high frequencies
xrect=0;
for q=1:401
xrect(q) = (1/(2*pi)).*trapz(xrecw.*exp(j*w*t(q))); %inverse fourier transform
end
xrect = abs(xrect);
plot(t,xrect)
Here's a direct answer to your question of "why" there is a nan. If you run your code, the Nan comes from dividing by zero in line 7 for computing xzohw. Notice that w contains zero:
>> find(w==0)
ans =
2001
and you can see in line 7 that you divide by the elements of w with the (2./w) factor.
A quick fix (although it is not a guarantee that your code will do what you want) is to avoid including 0 in w by using a step which avoids zero. Since pi is certainly not divisible by 100, you can try taking steps in .01 increments:
w = -20*pi:0.01:20*pi;
Using this, your code produces a plot which might resemble what you're looking for. In order to do better, we might need more details on exactly what you're trying to do, or what these variables represent.
Hope this helps!
Related
I am trying to figure out how to right a math based app with Matlab, although I cannot seem to figure out how to get the Monte Carlo method of integration to work. I feel that I do not have algorithm thought out correctly either. As of now, I have something like:
// For the function {integral of cos(x^3)*exp(x^(1/2))+x dx
// from x = 0 to x = 10
ans = 0;
for i = 1:100000000
x = 10*rand;
ans = ans + cos(x^3)*exp(x^(1/2))+x
end
I feel that this is completely wrong because my outputs are hardly even close to what is expected. How should I correctly write this? Or, how should the algorithm for setting this up look?
Two issues:
1) If you look at what you're calculating, "ans" is going to grow as i increases. By putting a huge number of samples, you're just increasing your output value. How could you normalize this value so that it stays relatively the same, regardless of number of samples?
2) Think about what you're trying to calculate here. Your current "ans" is giving you the sum of 100000000 independent random measurements of the output to your function. What does this number represent if you divide by the number of samples you've taken? How could you combine that knowledge with the range of integration in order to get the expected area under the curve?
I managed to solve this with the formula I found here. I ended up using:
ans = 0;
n = 0;
for i:1:100000000
x = 10*rand;
n = n + cos(x^3)*exp(x^(1/2))+x;
end
ans = ((10-0)/100000000)*n
I need to produce a signal x=-2*cos(100*pi*n)+2*cos(140*pi*n)+cos(200*pi*n)
So I put it like this :
N=1024;
for n=1:N
x=-2*cos(100*pi*n)+2*cos(140*pi*n)+cos(200*pi*n);
end
But What I get is that the result keeps giving out 1
I tried to test each values according to each n, and I get the same results for any n
For example -2*cos(100*pi*n) with n=1 has to be -1.393310473. Instead of that, Matlab gave the result -2 for it and it always gave -2 for any n
I don't know how to fix it, so I hope someone could help me out! Thank you!
Not sure where you get the idea that -2*cos(100*pi) should be anything other than -2. Maybe you are not aware that Matlab works in radians?
Look at your expression. Each term can be factored to contain 2*pi*(an integer). And you should know that cos(2*pi*(an integer)) = 1.
So the results are exactly as expected.
What you are seeing is basically what happens when you under-sample a waveform. You may know that the Nyquist criterion says that you need to have a sampling rate that is at least two times greater than the highest frequency component present; but in your case, you are sampling one point every 50, 70, 100 complete cycles. So you are "far beyond Nyquist". And that can only be solved by sampling more closely.
For example, you could do:
t = linspace(0, 1, 1024); % sample the waveform 1024 times between 0 and 1
f1 = 50;
f2 = 70;
f3 = 100;
signal = -2*cos(2*pi*f1*t) + 2*cos(2*pi*f2*t) + cos(2*pi*f3*t);
figure; plot(t, signal)
I think you are using degrees when you are doing your calculations, so do this:
n = 1:1024
x=-2*cosd(100*pi*n)+2*cosd(140*pi*n)+cosd(200*pi*n);
cosd uses degrees instead of radians. Radians is the default for cos so matlab has a separate function when degree input is used. For me this gave:
-2*cosd(100*pi*1) = -1.3933
The first term that I got using:
x=-2*cosd(100*pi*1)+2*cosd(140*pi*1)+cosd(200*pi*1)
x = -1.0693
Also notice that I defined n as n = 1:1024; this will give all integers from 1,2,...,1024,
there is no need to use a for loop since many of Matlab's built in functions are vectorized. Meaning you can just input a vector and it will calculate the function for every element in the vector.
I have the following code which is used to deconvolve a signal. It works very well, within my error limit...as long as I divide my final result by a very large factor (11000).
width = 83.66;
x = linspace(-400,400,1000);
a2 = 1.205e+004 ;
al = 1.778e+005 ;
b1 = 94.88 ;
c1 = 224.3 ;
d = 4.077 ;
measured = al*exp(-((abs((x-b1)./c1).^d)))+a2;
rect = #(x) 0.5*(sign(x+0.5) - sign(x-0.5));
rt = rect(x/83.66);
signal = conv(rt,measured,'same');
check = (1/11000)*conv(signal,rt,'same');
Here is what I have. measured represents the signal I was given. Signal is what I am trying to find. And check is to verify that if I convolve my slit with the signal I found, I get the same result. If you use what I have exactly, you will see that the check and measured are off by that factor of 11000~ish that I threw up there.
Does anyone have any suggestions. My thoughts are that the slit height is not exactly 1 or that convolve will not actually effectively deconvolve, as I request it to. (The use of deconv only gives me 1 point, so I used convolve instead).
I think you misunderstand what conv (and probably also therefore deconv) is doing.
A discrete convolution is simply a sum. In fact, you can expand it as a sum, using a couple of explicit loops, sums of products of the measured and rt vectors.
Note that sum(rt) is not 1. Were rt scaled to sum to 1, then conv would preserve the scaling of your original vector. So, note how the scalings pass through here.
sum(rt)
ans =
104
sum(measured)
ans =
1.0231e+08
signal = conv(rt,measured);
sum(signal)
ans =
1.0640e+10
sum(signal)/sum(rt)
ans =
1.0231e+08
See that this next version does preserve the scaling of your vector:
signal = conv(rt/sum(rt),measured);
sum(signal)
ans =
1.0231e+08
Now, as it turns out, you are using the same option for conv. This introduces an edge effect, since it truncates some of the signal so it ends up losing just a bit.
signal = conv(rt/sum(rt),measured,'same');
sum(signal)
ans =
1.0187e+08
The idea is that conv will preserve the scaling of your signal as long as the kernel is scaled to sum to 1, AND there are no losses due to truncation of the edges. Of course convolution as an integral also has a similar property.
By the way, where did that quoted factor of roughly 11000 come from?
sum(rt)^2
ans =
10816
Might be coincidence. Or not. Think about it.
I am asked to write an fft mix radix in matlab, but before that I want to let to do a discrete Fourier transform in a straight forward way. So I decide to write the code according to the formula defined as defined in wikipedia.
[Sorry I'm not allowed to post images yet]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Discrete_Fourier_transform
So I wrote my code as follows:
%Brutal Force Descrete Fourier Trnasform
function [] = dft(X)
%Get the size of A
NN=size(X);
N=NN(2);
%====================
%Declaring an array to store the output variable
Y = zeros (1, N)
%=========================================
for k = 0 : (N-1)
st = 0; %the dummy in the summation is zero before we add
for n = 0 : (N-1)
t = X(n+1)*exp(-1i*2*pi*k*n/N);
st = st + t;
end
Y(k+1) = st;
end
Y
%=============================================
However, my code seems to be outputting a result different from the ones from this website:
http://www.random-science-tools.com/maths/FFT.htm
Can you please help me detect where exactly is the problem?
Thank you!
============
Never mind it seems that my code is correct....
By default the calculator in the web link applies a window function to the data before doing the FFT. Could that be the reason for the difference? You can turn windowing off from the drop down menu.
BTW there is an FFT function in Matlab
I have a matrix containing angles and I need to compute the mean and the variance.
for the mean I procede in this way:
for each angles compute sin and cos and sum all sin and all cos
the mean is given by the atan2(sin, cos)
and it works
my question is how to compute the variance of angles knowing the mean?
thank you for the answers
I attach my matlab code:
for i=1:size(im2,1)
for j=1:size(im2,2)
y=y+sin(hue(i, j));
x=x+cos(hue(i, j));
end
end
mean=atan2(y, x);
if mean<0
mean=mean+(2*pi);
end
In order to compute variance of an angle you can not use standard variance. This is the formulation to compute var of an angles:
R = 1 - sqrt((sum(sin(angle)))^2 + (sum(cos(angle)))^2)/n;
There is similar other formulation as well:
var(angle) = var(sin(angle)) + var(cos(angle));
Ref:
http://www.ebi.ac.uk/thornton-srv/software/PROCHECK/nmr_manual/man_cv.html
I am not 100% sure what you are doing, but maybe this would achieve the same thing with the build in MATLAB functions mean and var.
>> [file path] = uigetfile;
>> someImage = imread([path file]);
>> hsv = rgb2hsv(someImage);
>> hue = hsv(:,:,1);
>> m = mean(hue(:))
m =
0.5249
>> v = var(hue(:))
v =
0.2074
EDIT: I am assuming you have an image because of your variable name hue. But it would be the same for any matrix.
EDIT 2: Maybe that is what you are looking for:
>> sumsin = sum(sin(hue(:)));
>> sumcos = sum(cos(hue(:)));
>> meanvalue = atan2(sumsin,sumcos)
meanvalue =
0.5276
>> sumsin = sum(sin((hue(:)-meanvalue).^2));
>> sumcos = sum(cos((hue(:)-meanvalue).^2));
>> variance = atan2(sumsin,sumcos)
variance =
0.2074
The variance of circular data can not be treated like the variance of unbounded data on the real line. (For very small variances, they are effectively equivalent, but for large variances the equivalence breaks down. It should be clear to you why this is.) I recommend Statistical Analysis of Circular Data by N.I. Fisher. This book contains a widely-used definition of circular variance that is computed from the mean resultant length of the unit vectors that correspond to the angles.
>> sumsin = sum(sin((hue(:)-meanvalue).^2));
>> sumcos = sum(cos((hue(:)-meanvalue).^2));
is wrong. You can't subtract angles like that.
By the way, this question really has nothing to do with MATLAB. You can probably get more/better answers posting on the statistics stack exchange
We had the same problem and in python, we could fix that with using scipy.cirvar which computes the circular variance for samples assumed to be in a range. For example:
from scipy.stats import circvar
circvar([0, 2*np.pi/3, 5*np.pi/3])
# 2.19722457734
circvar([0, 2*np.pi])
# -0.0
The problem with the proposed MATLAB code is that the variance of [0, 6.28] should be zero. By looking at the implementation of scipy.circvar it is like:
# Recast samples as radians that range between 0 and 2 pi and calculate the sine and cosine
samples, sin_samp, cos_samp, nmask = _circfuncs_common(samples, high, low)
sin_mean = sin_samp.mean()
cos_mean = cos_samp.mean()
R = np.minimum(1, hypot(sin_mean, cos_mean))
circular_variance = ((high - low)/2.0/pi)**2 * -2 * np.log(R)