We have the following mathematical formulas to solve differential equations by Euler's method
xn+1 = xn + h
yn+1 = yn + h*f(xn, yn)
Suppose we have been provided y(x0)=any value,then we have x0 and y0 and also h has been provided by the user.
I am having problem to understand how can I accept the function f(xn, yn) from the user since the function can be either algebraic,trigonometric,exponential or logarithmic and the function would be of type dy/dx=(expression).The program code should be able to solve any differential expression entered by the user and the answers of the approximations must be correct upto 4 decimal places.
It is possible to accept the expression as a String but I would not be able to perform calculations on String.Any suggestions or solutions would be appreciated.
Site of Euler's method:http://calculuslab.deltacollege.edu/ODE/7-C-1/7-C-1-h-c.html
Example Input:
expression input:
dy/dx=x+2y
initial conditions input:
x0=0, y0=0
enter step size: h=0.25
enter the value for which you want to find solution for: x=1
Example output:
output
Related
I am a beginner in Stata and I am trying to create a loop regression, store the coefficients of the DVs and then plot these. Does this code make sense?
forvalues i = 1/100 {
regress y x1 x2 x3 if ID==`i'
matrix b1 = e(x1)
matrix b2 = e(x2)
matrix b3 = e(x3)
}
I am using coefplot right after and it just does not work. Any help will be very highly appreciated.
Does this code make sense? As you say, it does not work.
I see three bugs.
After each regression, the coefficients are not stored in e(x1) and so on. Such references are not illegal, but they just return missing values.
Similarly a command like
matrix b1 = e(x1)
just creates a 1 x 1 matrix with a single missing value.
Each time around the loop you just overwrite the previous matrices. Nothing in the code accumulates results, even if #1 and #2 were what you want.
Hence, a natural question is: where did this code come from?
There are several ways to get coefficients stored from say 100 regressions. See for example statsby and the community-contributed rangestat (SSC).
I fail to understand why, in the below example, only x1 turns into a 1000 column array while y is a single number.
x = [0:1:999];
y = (7.5*(x))/(18000+(x));
x1 = exp(-((x)*8)/333);
Any clarification would be highly appreciated!
Why is x1 1x1000?
As given in the documentation,
exp(X) returns the exponential eˣ for each element in array X.
Since x is 1x1000, so -(x*8)/333 is 1x1000 and when exp() is applied on it, exponentials of all 1000 elements are computed and hence x1 is also 1x1000. As an example, exp([1 2 3]) is same as [exp(1) exp(2) exp(3)].
Why is y a single number?
As given in the documentation,
If A is a rectangular m-by-n matrix with m~= n, and B is a matrix
with n columns, then x = B/A returns a least-squares solution of the
system of equations x*A = B.
In your case,
A is 18000+x and size(18000+x) is 1x1000 i.e. m=1 and n=1000, and m~=n
and B is 7.5*x which has n=1000 columns.
⇒(7.5*x)/(18000+x) is returning you least-squares solution of equations x*(18000+x) = 7.5*x.
Final Remarks:
x = [0:1:999];
Brackets are unnecessary here and it should better be use like this: x=0:1:999 ;
It seems that you want to do element-wise division for computing x1 for which you should use ./ operator like this:
y=(7.5*x)./(18000+x); %Also removed unnecessary brackets
Also note that addition is always element-wise. .+ is not a valid MATLAB syntax (It works in Octave though). See valid arithmetic array and matrix operators in MATLAB here.
3. x1 also has some unnecessary brackets.
The question has already been answered by other people. I just want to point out a small thing. You do not need to write x = 0:1:999. It is better written as x = 0:999 as the default increment value used by MATLAB or Octave is 1.
Try explicitly specifying that you want to do element-wise operations rather than matrix operations:
y = (7.5.*(x))./(18000+(x));
In general, .* does elementwise multiplication, ./ does element-wise division, etc. So [1 2] .* [3 4] yields [3 8]. Omitting the dots will cause Matlab to use matrix operations whenever it can find a reasonable interpretation of your inputs as matrices.
i am trying to learn matlab.
I am trying to make a program that draw these imaginary numbers: ("," = decimal number)
and determine what of the 500 numbers that is closest the real axis.
And i need a little guidance.
What do i have to do to solve this task?
I was thinking about making a loop where all the "values" get stored in a array:
[code]
n= 1
while n < 500
value=1+0.1^n;
disp(value)
n=n+1[/code]
(seems like value is printing wrong values? and how to store in a array?)
And then somehow determine what number that is nearest the real axis and then display the value.
would be really grateful if someone could help me.
thanks in advance.
MATLAB creates imaginary numbers by appending an i or j term with the number. For example, if you wanted to create an imaginary number such that the real component was 1 and the imaginary component was 1, you would simply do:
>> A = 1 + i
A =
1.0000 + 1.0000i
You can see that there is a distinct real component as well as an imaginary component and is stored in A. Similarly, if you want to make the imaginary component have anything other than 1, you would need to add a constant in front of the i (or j). Something like:
>> A = 3 + 6i
A =
3.0000 + 6.0000i
Therefore, for your task, you simply need to create a vector of n between 1 to 500, input this into the above equation, then plot the resulting imaginary numbers. In this case, you would plot the real component on the x axis and the imaginary component on the y axis. Something like:
>> n = 1 : 500;
>> A = (1 + 0.1i).^n;
>> plot(real(A), imag(A));
real and imag are functions in MATLAB that access the real and imaginary components of complex numbers stored in arrays, matrices or single values. As noted by knedlsepp, you can simply plot the array itself as plot can handle complex-valued arrays:
>> plot(A);
Nice picture btw! Be mindful of the . operator appended with the ^ operator. The . means an element-wise operation. This means that we wish to apply the power operation for each value of n from 1 to 500 with 1 + 0.1i as the base. The result would be a 500 element array with the resulting calculations. If we did ^ by itself, we would be expecting to perform a matrix power operation, when this is not the case.
The values that you want to analyze for each value of n being applied to the equation in your post are stored in A. We then plot the real and imaginary components on the graph. Now if you want to find which numbers are closest to the real axis, you simply need to find the smallest absolute imaginary component of the numbers stored in A, then search for all of those numbers that share this number.
>> min_dist = min(abs(imag(A)));
>> vals = A(abs(imag(A)) == min_dist)
vals =
1.3681 - 0.0056i
This means that the value of 1.3681 - 0.0056i is the closest to the real axis.
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
I want to write a C program that will calculate a series:
1/x + 1/2*x^2 + 1/3*x^3 + 1/4*x^4 + ...
up to five decimal places.
The program will take x as input and print the f(x) (value of series) up to five decimal places. Can you help me?
For evaluating a polynomial, Horner form generally has better numerical stability than expanded form See http://reference.wolfram.com/legacy/v5/Add-onsLinks/StandardPackages/Algebra/Horner.html
If first term was a typo then try (((((1/4 )* x + 1/3) * x ) + 1/2) * x + 1) * x
Else if first term is really 1/x (((((1/4 )* x + 1/3) * x ) + 1/2) * x*x + 1/x
Of course, you still have to analyze convergence and numerical stability as developped in Eric Postpischil answer.
Last thing, does the serie you submited as example really converge to a finite value for some x???
In order to know that the sum you have calculated is within a desired distance to the limit of the series, you need to demonstrate that the sources of error are less than the desired distance.
When evaluating a series numerically, there are two sources of error. One is the limitations of numerical calculation, such as floating-point rounding. The other is the sum of the remaining terms, which have not been added into the partial sum.
The numerical error depends on the calculations done. For each series you want to evaluate, a custom analysis of the error must be performed. For the sample series you show, a crude but sufficient bound on the numerical error could like be calculated without too much effort. Is this the series you are primarily interested in, or are there others?
The sum of the remaining terms also requires a custom analysis. Often, given a series, we can find an expression that can be proven to be at least as large as the sum of all remaining terms but that is more easily calculated.
After you have established bounds on these two errors, you could sum terms of the series until the sum of the two bounds is less than the desired distance.