Where can I find the the documentation for this sort of division and output? Why is the results different from 1./a?
a = [4,5,6,8]
>> 1/a'
ans =
0 0 0 0.1250
For arrays, the operand / is the mrdivide function: the result of B/A will be one solution of the linear system xA=B.
It is completely different from the operand ./, which corresponds to the rdivide function.
Note that, as stated in the comments, a scalar in Matlab is treated as a 1x1 matrix.
You are asking matlab to solve the equitation x*[4,5,6,8]'=1, one possible solution is [0,0,0,.125]
Related
I know that bsxfun(which works fast!) and arrayfun(as far as I could understand, uses loops internally which is expected to be slow) are intended for different uses, at least, at the most basic level.
Having said this, I am trying
to sum up all the numbers in a given array, say y, before a certain index
add the number at the specific location(which is the number at the above index location) to the above sum.
I could perform this with the below piece of example code easily:
% index array
x = [ 1:6 ]; % value array
y = [ 3 3 4 4 1 1 ];
% arrayfun version
o2 = arrayfun(#(a) ...
sum(y(1:(a-1)))+...
y(a), ...
x)
But it seems to be slow on large inputs.
I was wondering what would be a good way to convert this to a version that works with bsxfun, if possible.
P.S. the numbers in y do not repeat as given above, this was just an example, it could also be [3 4 3 1 4 ...]
Is x always of the form 1 : n? Assuming the answer is yes, then you can get the same result with the much faster code:
o2 = cumsum(y);
Side note: you don't need the brackets in the definition of x.
if you have a supported GPU device, you can define your variables as gpuArray type since arrayfun, bsxfun and pagefun are compatible with GPUs.
GPU computing is supposed to be faster for large data.
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 using hist to compute the number of occurrences of values in a matrix in Matlab.
I think I am using it wrong because it gives me completely weird results. Could you help me to understand what is going on?
When I run this piece of code I get countsB as desired
rng default;
B=randi([0,3],10,1);
idxB=unique(B);
countsB=(hist(B,idxB))';
i.e.
B=[3;3;0;3;2;0;1;2;3;3];
idxB=[0;1;2;3];
countsB=[2;1;2;5];
When I run this other piece of code I get wrong results for countsA
A=ones(524288,1)*3418;
idxA=unique(A);
countsA=(hist(A,idxA))';
i.e.
idxA=3148;
countsA=[zeros(1709,1); 524288; zeros(1708,1)];
What am I doing wrong?
To add to the other answers: you can replace hist by the explicit sum:
idxA = unique(A);
countsA = sum(bsxfun(#eq, A(:), idxA(:).'), 1);
idxA is a scalar, which means the number of bins in this context.
setting idxA as a vector instead e.g. [0,3418] will get you a hist with bins centered at 0 and 3418, similarly to what you got with idxB, which was also a vector
I think it has to do with:
N = HIST(Y,M), where M is a scalar, uses M bins.
and I think you are assuming it would do:
N = HIST(Y,X), where X is a vector, returns the distribution of Y
among bins with centers specified by X.
In other words, in the first case matlab is assuming that you are asking for 3418 bins
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
Does there exist a function similar to that of numpy's * operator for two arrays to multiply their elements in an element-wise manner, returning an array of the similar type?
For example:
#Lets define:
a = [0,1,2,3]
b = [1,2,3,4]
d = [[1,2] , [3,4], [5,6]]
e = [3,4,5]
#I want:
a * 2 == [2*0, 1*2, 2*2, 2*3]
a * b == [0*1, 1*2, 2*3, 3*4]
d * e == [[1*3, 2*3], [3*4, 4*4], [5*5, 6*5]]
d * d == [[1*1, 2*2], [3*3, 4*4], [5*5, 6*6]]
Note how * IS NOT regular matrix multiplication it is element-wise multiplication.
My current best solution is to write some c code, which does this, and import a compiled dll.
There must exist a better solution.
EDIT:
Using LabVIEW 2011 - Needs to be fast.
The first two multiplications can be done by using the 'multiply' primitive. Make sure the arrays in the second case are of the same length.
For the third multipllication you can use a for loop (with auto-indexing). This is needed because you need to instruct LabVIEW what the basic index is.
The last multiplication can (again) be done using the multiply primitive.
My result is different (opposite) from the previous posters. I generated a 4x1000 array of random numbers (magnitude 1000) which I multiplied by a 4x4 array of integers (1,2,3,4,...). I did this 100,000 times using the matrix multiplication VI and also using for loops to perform the operation on the arrays. I'm seeing times on the order of 0.328s for the matrix VIs and 0.051s for the for loops. Using a compiled DLL may be faster than Labview, but this does not seem to be true for the built-in functions.
This is certainly not what I expected, but it is consistent over many cycles. The VI is standard execution thread. All data types are set before the timed operations - no coercion takes place in the loops. The operations are performed separately, staged by a flat sequence structure, as is the time measurement. Parallelism is turned off.