I was looking for a way to generate a logarithmic spaced array in IDL.
From the L3 Harris Geospatial website I came across "arrgen" and was trying to use it for this purpose. However,
arrgen(1,215,/log)
returns the error: Variable is undefined: ARRGEN.
What would be the correct way to do it?
Thanks in advance for your help
Start by defining your lower and upper bounds in which ever log-base you prefer. I will use base $e$ for brevity sake.
lowe = ALOG(low[0])
uppe = ALOG(upp[0])
where low and upp are scalar, numerical values you, the user, define (e.g., 1 and 215 in your example). Then construct an evenly spaced array of n elements, such as:
dinde = DINDGEN(n[0])*(uppe[0] - lowe[0])/(n[0] - 1L) + lowe[0]
where n is a scalar integer. Now convert back to linear space to get:
dind = EXP(dinde)
This will be a logarithmically spaced array. If you want to use base-10 log, then substitute ALOG for ALOG10. If you need another base, then you can use the logarithmic change of base rule given by:
logb x = logc x / logc b
Related
I am new to MATLAB and currently working on my homework assignment. I am trying to declare the x variable as the following:
Create a linearly spaced array x of size (1 × 200) comprising values ranging from –pi to pi.
I've tried this code:
x=[-pi:200:pi];
but I'm not sure if it's the correct way to do this or not.
You can use linspace as follow:
x = linspace(-pi, pi, 200);
check this out for an example:
https://www.mathworks.com/help/matlab/ref/linspace.html
The other answer shows how to use linspace, this is the correct method.
But you can also use the colon operator and some simple arithmetic to do this:
x = -pi : 2*pi/199 : pi -- This means: go from -π to π in steps of such a size that we get exactly 200 values.
x = (0:199) * (2*pi/199) - pi -- This means: create an array with 200 integer values, then scale them to the right range.
Note that you shouldn't use square brackets [] here. They are for concatenating arrays. The colon operator creates a single array, there is nothing to concatenate it with.
Given two sorted array A and B length N. Each elements may contain natural number less than M. Determine all possible distances for all combinations elements A and B. In this case, if A[i] - B[j] < 0, then the distance is M + (A[i] - B[j]).
Example :
A = {0,2,3}
B = {1,2}
M = 5
Distances = {0,1,2,3,4}
Note: I know O(N^2) solution, but I need faster solution than O(N^2) and O(N x M).
Edit: Array A, B, and Distances contain distinct elements.
You can get a O(MlogM) complexity solution in the following way.
Prepare an array Ax of length M with Ax[i] = 1 if i belongs to A (and 0 otherwise)
Prepare an array Bx of length M with Bx[M-1-i] = 1 if i belongs to B (and 0 otherwise)
Use the Fast Fourier Transform to convolve these 2 sequences together
Inspect the output array, non-zero values correspond to possible distances
Note that the FFT is normally done with floating point numbers, so in step 4 you probably want to test if the output is greater than 0.5 to avoid potential rounding noise issues.
I possible done with optimized N*N.
If convert A to 0 and 1 array where 1 on positions which present in A (in range [0..M].
After convert this array into bitmasks, size of A array will be decreased into 64 times.
This will allow insert results by blocks of size 64.
Complexity still will be N*N but working time will be greatly decreased. As limitation mentioned by author 50000 for A and B sizes and M.
Expected operations count will be N*N/64 ~= 4*10^7. It will passed in 1 sec.
You can use bitvectors to accomplish this. Bitvector operations on large bitvectors is linear in the size of the bitvector, but is fast, easy to implement, and may work well given your 50k size limit.
Initialize two bitvectors of length M. Call these vectA and vectAnswer. Set the bits of vectA that correspond to the elements in A. Leave vectAnswer with all zeroes.
Define a method to rotate a bitvector by k elements (rotate down). I'll call this rotate(vect,k).
Then, for every element b of B, vectAnswer = vectAnswer | rotate(vectA,b).
Is there some advantage of writing
t = linspace(0,20,21)
over
t = 0:1:20
?
I understand the former produces a vector, as the first does.
Can anyone state me some situation where linspace is useful over t = 0:1:20?
It's not just the usability. Though the documentation says:
The linspace function generates linearly spaced vectors. It is
similar to the colon operator :, but gives direct control over the
number of points.
it is the same, the main difference and advantage of linspace is that it generates a vector of integers with the desired length (or default 100) and scales it afterwards to the desired range. The : colon creates the vector directly by increments.
Imagine you need to define bin edges for a histogram. And especially you need the certain bin edge 0.35 to be exactly on it's right place:
edges = [0.05:0.10:.55];
X = edges == 0.35
edges = 0.0500 0.1500 0.2500 0.3500 0.4500 0.5500
X = 0 0 0 0 0 0
does not define the right bin edge, but:
edges = linspace(0.05,0.55,6); %// 6 = (0.55-0.05)/0.1+1
X = edges == 0.35
edges = 0.0500 0.1500 0.2500 0.3500 0.4500 0.5500
X = 0 0 0 1 0 0
does.
Well, it's basically a floating point issue. Which can be avoided by linspace, as a single division of an integer is not that delicate, like the cumulative sum of floting point numbers. But as Mark Dickinson pointed out in the comments:
You shouldn't rely on any of the computed values being exactly what you expect. That is not what linspace is for. In my opinion it's a matter of how likely you will get floating point issues and how much you can reduce the probabilty for them or how small can you set the tolerances. Using linspace can reduce the probability of occurance of these issues, it's not a security.
That's the code of linspace:
n1 = n-1
c = (d2 - d1).*(n1-1) % opposite signs may cause overflow
if isinf(c)
y = d1 + (d2/n1).*(0:n1) - (d1/n1).*(0:n1)
else
y = d1 + (0:n1).*(d2 - d1)/n1
end
To sum up: linspace and colon are reliable at doing different tasks. linspace tries to ensure (as the name suggests) linear spacing, whereas colon tries to ensure symmetry
In your special case, as you create a vector of integers, there is no advantage of linspace (apart from usability), but when it comes to floating point delicate tasks, there may is.
The answer of Sam Roberts provides some additional information and clarifies further things, including some statements of MathWorks regarding the colon operator.
linspace and the colon operator do different things.
linspace creates a vector of integers of the specified length, and then scales it down to the specified interval with a division. In this way it ensures that the output vector is as linearly spaced as possible.
The colon operator adds increments to the starting point, and subtracts decrements from the end point to reach a middle point. In this way, it ensures that the output vector is as symmetric as possible.
The two methods thus have different aims, and will often give very slightly different answers, e.g.
>> a = 0:pi/1000:10*pi;
>> b = linspace(0,10*pi,10001);
>> all(a==b)
ans =
0
>> max(a-b)
ans =
3.5527e-15
In practice, however, the differences will often have little impact unless you are interested in tiny numerical details. I find linspace more convenient when the number of gaps is easy to express, whereas I find the colon operator more convenient when the increment is easy to express.
See this MathWorks technical note for more detail on the algorithm behind the colon operator. For more detail on linspace, you can just type edit linspace to see exactly what it does.
linspace is useful where you know the number of elements you want rather than the size of the "step" between them. So if I said make a vector with 360 elements between 0 and 2*pi as a contrived example it's either going to be
linspace(0, 2*pi, 360)
or if you just had the colon operator you would have to manually calculate the step size:
0:(2*pi - 0)/(360-1):2*pi
linspace is just more convenient
For a simple real world application, see this answer where linspace is helpful in creating a custom colour map
Given the vector size N, I want to generate a vector <s1,s2, ..., sn> that s1+s2+...+sn = S.
Known 0<S<1 and si < S. Also such vectors generated should be uniformly distributed.
Any code in C that helps explain would be great!
The code here seems to do the trick, though it's rather complex.
I would probably settle for a simpler rejection-based algorithm, namely: pick an orthonormal basis in n-dimensional space starting with the hyperplane's normal vector. Transform each of the points (S,0,0,0..0), (0,S,0,0..0) into that basis and store the minimum and maximum along each of the basis vectors. Sample uniformly each component in the new basis, except for the first one (the normal vector), which is always S, then transform back to the original space and check if the constraints are satisfied. If they are not, sample again.
P.S. I think this is more of a maths question, actually, could be a good idea to ask at http://maths.stackexchange.com or http://stats.stackexchange.com
[I'll skip "hyper-" prefix for simplicity]
One of possible ideas: generate many uniformly distributed points in some enclosing volume and project them on the target part of plane.
To get uniform distribution the volume must be shaped like the part of plane but with added margins along plane normal.
To uniformly generate points in such volumewe can enclose it in a cube and reject everything outside of the volume.
select margin, let's take margin=S for simplicity (once margin is positive it affects only performance)
generate a point in cube [-M,S+M]x[-M,S+M]x[-M,S+M]
if distance to the plane is more than M, reject the point and go to #2
project the point on the plane
check that projection falls into [0,S]x[0,S]x[0,S], if not - reject and go to #2
add this point to the resulting set and go to #2 is you need more points
The problem can be mapped to that of sampling on linear polytopes for which the common approaches are Monte Carlo methods, Random Walks, and hit-and-run methods (see https://www.jmlr.org/papers/volume19/18-158/18-158.pdf for examples a short comparison). It is related to linear programming, and can be extended to manifolds.
There is also the analysis of polytopes in compositional data analysis, e.g. https://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1023/A:1023818214614.pdf, which provide an invertible transformation between the plane and the polytope that can be used for sampling.
If you are working on low dimensions, you can use also rejection sampling. This means you first sample on the plane containing the polytope (defined by your inequalities). This later method is easy to implement (and wasteful, of course), the GNU Octave (I let the author of the question re-implement in C) code below is an example.
The first requirement is to get vector orthogonal to the hyperplane. For a sum of N variables this is n = (1,...,1). The second requirement is a point on the plane. For your example that could be p = (S,...,S)/N.
Now any point on the plane satisfies n^T * (x - p) = 0
we assume also that x_i >= 0
With these given you compute an orthonormal basis on the plane (the nullity of the vector n) and then create random combination on that bases. Finally you map back to the original space and apply your constraints on the generated samples.
# Example in 3D
dim = 3;
S = 1;
n = ones(dim, 1); # perpendicular vector
p = S * ones(dim, 1) / dim;
# null-space of the perpendicular vector (transposed, i.e. row vector)
# this generates a basis in the plane
V = null (n.');
# These steps are just to reduce the amount of samples that are rejected
# we build a tight bounding box
bb = S * eye(dim); # each column is a corner of the constrained region
# project on the null-space
w_bb = V \ (bb - repmat(p, 1, dim));
wmin = min (w_bb(:));
wmax = max (w_bb(:));
# random combinations and map back
nsamples = 1e3;
w = wmin + (wmax - wmin) * rand(dim - 1, nsamples);
x = V * w + p;
# mask the points inside the polytope
msk = true(1, nsamples);
for i = 1:dim
msk &= (x(i,:) >= 0);
endfor
x_in = x(:, msk); # inside the polytope (your samples)
x_out = x(:, !msk); # outside the polytope
# plot the results
scatter3 (x(1,:), x(2,:), x(3,:), 8, double(msk), 'filled');
hold on
plot3(bb(1,:), bb(2,:), bb(3,:), 'xr')
axis image
I have an array of 32766 values, which I would like to upsample to fit other arrays of 65534 values.
I could also cycle in a way to take multiple times the same value, but I have to use it several times.
There is a way to increase the number of samples? I've seen the resample function, but it seems for a specific type of object data...
Edit
I was looking for the wrong term: I've found the function interp that upsamples for an integer number, and now I've used it and adapted the array replicating the last two values to fit the other; there is a way to automatically achieve the same size?
You can use interp1:
x = 1:10;
y = x.*x;
%The x values that you want to be interpolated;
xi = 1:0.25:10;
yi = interp1(x,y,xi);