The below code is supposed to calculate some values and place them in incremental places in the numpy.zeros() array. The calculations all perform correctly but the array stays as just zeros. I could be missing something obvious so apologies if I am.
n = 256
lam = l
a = numpy.zeros([(len(z[0]) * len(z[:,0]) + n + 1), (n + len(z[0]))])
b = numpy.zeros([numpy.size(a, 0), 1])
#data fitting equations
k = 0
for i in range(len(z[0])):
for j in range(len(z[:,0])-1):
wij = smoother(z[j][i] + lam)
a[k][(z[j][i]+lam)] = float(wij)
print a[k][(z[j][i]+lam)]
a[k][n+j] = float(-wij)
b[k][0] = float(-wij * B[j])
k = k + 1
Thanks,
Tom
Answer supplied by Jaime works fine. Use
a[1, 2]
rather than
a[1][2]
Related
Im writing currently rewriting a Matlab script in C. When i get to the last few lines of the Matlab script a for loop is executed and it iterates through an array. Since i am trying to rewrite the program in C the slicing notation in the Matlab script is confusing me. I have attached the line of code that is troubling me below.
How would i write this line of code in a nested for loop indexing with i and j only, since you cant slice in c obviously. just for reference u = 1, Ubc is 2D array of size (NX+2, NY+2). Where NX = NY = 40.
Below is the line of code in Matlab i need to translate to for loop indexing.
Nx = 40;
Ny = 40;
u = 1;
Ubc = rand(Nx + 2, Ny + 2);
% First the i interfaces
F = 0.5* u *( Ubc(2:Nx+2,2:Ny+1) + Ubc(1:Nx+1,2:Ny+1))
- 0.5*abs(u)*( Ubc(2:Nx+2,2:Ny+1) - Ubc(1:Nx+1,2:Ny+1));
You can calculate the same in a loop as
Nx = 40;
Ny = 40;
u = 1;
Ubc = rand(Nx + 2, Ny + 2);
F = zeros(Nx + 1, Ny);
for z1 = 1 : Nx + 1
for z2 = 1 : Ny
F(z1, z2) = 0.5* u *( Ubc(z1 + 1, z2 + 1) + Ubc(z1, z2 + 1))
- 0.5*abs(u)*( Ubc(z1 + 1, z2 + 1) - Ubc(z1, z2 + 1));
end
end
You shouldn't use i and j as loop index in Matlab. Both are the imaginary unit.
I have a matrix A of dimension m-by-n composed of zeros and ones, and a matrix J of dimension m-by-1 reporting some integers from [1,...,n].
I want to construct a matrix B of dimension m-by-n such that for i = 1,...,m
B(i,j) = A(i,j) for j=1,...,n-1
B(i,n) = abs(A(i,n)-1)
If sum(B(i,:)) is odd then B(i,J(i)) = abs(B(i,J(i))-1)
This code does what I want:
m = 4;
n = 5;
A = [1 1 1 1 1; ...
0 0 1 0 0; ...
1 0 1 0 1; ...
0 1 0 0 1];
J = [1;2;1;4];
B = zeros(m,n);
for i = 1:m
B(i,n) = abs(A(i,n)-1);
for j = 1:n-1
B(i,j) = A(i,j);
end
if mod(sum(B(i,:)),2)~=0
B(i,J(i)) = abs(B(i,J(i))-1);
end
end
Can you suggest more efficient algorithms, that do not use the nested loop?
No for loops are required for your question. It just needs an effective use of the colon operator and logical-indexing as follows:
% First initialize B to all zeros
B = zeros(size(A));
% Assign all but last columns of A to B
B(:, 1:end-1) = A(:, 1:end-1);
% Assign the last column of B based on the last column of A
B(:, end) = abs(A(:, end) - 1);
% Set all cells to required value
% Original code which does not work: B(oddRow, J(oddRow)) = abs(B(oddRow, J(oddRow)) - 1);
% Correct code:
% Find all rows in B with an odd sum
oddRow = find(mod(sum(B, 2), 2) ~= 0);
for ii = 1:numel(oddRow)
B(oddRow(ii), J(oddRow(ii))) = abs(B(oddRow(ii), J(oddRow(ii))) - 1);
end
I guess for the last part it is best to use a for loop.
Edit: See the neat trick by EBH to do the last part without a for loop
Just to add to #ammportal good answer, also the last part can be done without a loop with the use of linear indices. For that, sub2ind is useful. So adopting the last part of the previous answer, this can be done:
% Find all rows in B with an odd sum
oddRow = find(mod(sum(B, 2), 2) ~= 0);
% convert the locations to linear indices
ind = sub2ind(size(B),oddRow,J(oddRow));
B(ind) = abs(B(ind)- 1);
I have 2 matrices defined as follows:
A=[1 2;3 4]
B=[1 4; 5 3]
Then I define Aensem, Bensem and Gensem like this:
Arow=A(:);
Brow=B(:);
Aensem=repmat(Arow,1,10);
Bensem=repmat(Brow,1,10);
G=A*B;
Grow=G(:);
Gensem=repmat(Grow,1,10);
I need to create a function that can calculate any Gensem-like arrays directly from Aensem and Bensem. I only have knowledge of Aensem and Bensem. I tried the following method, but it's not working:
function ret = mat_mult(v1, v2, r)
ret = zeros(size(v1));
for i = 1:2*r.c.M
for j = 1:2*r.c.M
sum = 0;
for k = 1:2*r.c.M
sum = sum + ...
v1(idx1(i,k,r),:) .* v2(idx1(k,j,r),:);
ret(idx1(i,j,r),:)=sum;
end
end
end
end
If I understand your question correctly, you want to calculate Gensem directly from Aensem and Bensem. This can be done as follows:
A_ = reshape(Aensem(:, 1), 2, 2); % extract A from Aensem
B_ = reshape(Bensem(:, 1), 2, 2); % extract B from Bensem
G_ = A_*B_; % calculate G based on the extracted A and B
Gensem_ = repmat(G_(:),1,10); % build Gensem
I have an array
A = [3, 4; 5, 6; 4, 1];
Is there a way I could convert all coordinate pairs of the array into linear indices such that:
A = [1, 2, 3]'
whereby (3,4), (5,6), and (4,1) are represented by 1, 2, and 3, respectively.
Many thanks!
The reason I need is because I need to loop through array A such that I could make use of each coordinate pairs (3,4), (5,6), and (4,1) at the same time. This is because I will need to feed each of these pairs into a function so as to make another computation. See pseudo code below:
for ii = 1: length(A);
[x, y] = function_obtain_coord_pairs(A);
B = function_obtain_fit(x, y, I);
end
whereby, at ii = 1, x=3 and y=4. The next iteration takes the pair x=5, y=6, etc.
Basically what will happen is that my kx2 array will be converted to a kx1 array. Thanks for your help.
Adapting your code, what you want was suggested by #Ander in the comments...
Your code
for ii = 1:length(A);
[x, y] = function_obtain_coord_pairs(A);
B = function_obtain_fit(x, y, I);
end
Adapted code
for ii = 1:size(A,1);
x = A(ii, 1);
y = A(ii, 2);
B = function_obtain_fit(x, y, I); % is I here supposed to be ii? I not defined...
end
Your unfamiliarly with indexing makes me think your function_obtain_fit function could probably be vectorised to accept the entire matrix A, but that's a matter for another day!
For instance, you really don't need to define x or y at all...
Better code
for ii = 1:size(A,1);
B = function_obtain_fit(A(ii, 1), A(ii, 2), I);
end
Here is a corrected version for your code:
A = [3, 4; 5, 6; 4, 1];
for k = A.'
B = function_obtain_fit(k(1),k(2),I)
end
By iterating directly on A you iterate over the columns of A. Because you want to iterate over the rows we need to take A.'. So if we just display k it is:
for k = A.'
k
end
the output is:
k =
3
4
k =
5
6
k =
4
1
I have the antenna array factor expression here:
I have coded the array factor expression as given below:
lambda = 1;
M = 100;N = 200; %an M x N array
dx = 0.3*lambda; %inter-element spacing in x direction
m = 1:M;
xm = (m - 0.5*(M+1))*dx; %element positions in x direction
dy = 0.4*lambda;
n = 1:N;
yn = (n - 0.5*(N+1))*dy;
thetaCount = 360; % no of theta values
thetaRes = 2*pi/thetaCount; % theta resolution
thetas = 0:thetaRes:2*pi-thetaRes; % theta values
phiCount = 180;
phiRes = pi/phiCount;
phis = -pi/2:phiRes:pi/2-phiRes;
cmpWeights = rand(N,M); %complex Weights
AF = zeros(phiCount,thetaCount); %Array factor
tic
for i = 1:phiCount
for j = 1:thetaCount
for p = 1:M
for q = 1:N
AF(i,j) = AF(i,j) + cmpWeights(q,p)*exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)*(xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i))));
end
end
end
end
How can I vectorize the code for calculating the Array Factor (AF).
I want the line:
AF(i,j) = AF(i,j) + cmpWeights(q,p)*exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)*(xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i))));
to be written in vectorized form (by modifying the for loop).
Approach #1: Full-throttle
The innermost nested loop generates this every iteration - cmpWeights(q,p)*exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)*(xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i)))), which are to summed up iteratively to give us the final output in AF.
Let's call the exp(.... part as B. Now, B basically has two parts, one is the scalar (2*pi*1j/lambda) and the other part
(xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i))) that is formed from the variables that are dependent on
the four iterators used in the original loopy versions - i,j,p,q. Let's call this other part as C for easy reference later on.
Let's put all that into perspective:
Loopy version had AF(i,j) = AF(i,j) + cmpWeights(q,p)*exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)*(xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i)))), which is now equivalent to AF(i,j) = AF(i,j) + cmpWeights(q,p)*B, where B = exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)*(xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i)))).
B could be simplified to B = exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)* C), where C = (xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i))).
C would depend on the iterators - i,j,p,q.
So, after porting onto a vectorized way, it would end up as this -
%// 1) Define vectors corresponding to iterators used in the loopy version
I = 1:phiCount;
J = 1:thetaCount;
P = 1:M;
Q = 1:N;
%// 2) Create vectorized version of C using all four vector iterators
mult1 = bsxfun(#times,sin(thetas(J)),cos(phis(I)).'); %//'
mult2 = bsxfun(#times,sin(thetas(J)),sin(phis(I)).'); %//'
mult1_xm = bsxfun(#times,mult1(:),permute(xm,[1 3 2]));
mult2_yn = bsxfun(#times,mult2(:),yn);
C_vect = bsxfun(#plus,mult1_xm,mult2_yn);
%// 3) Create vectorized version of B using vectorized C
B_vect = reshape(exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)*C_vect),phiCount*thetaCount,[]);
%// 4) Final output as matrix multiplication between vectorized versions of B and C
AF_vect = reshape(B_vect*cmpWeights(:),phiCount,thetaCount);
Approach #2: Less-memory intensive
This second approach would reduce the memory traffic and it uses the distributive property of exponential - exp(A+B) = exp(A)*exp(B).
Now, the original loopy version was this -
AF(i,j) = AF(i,j) + cmpWeights(q,p)*exp((2*pi*1j/lambda)*...
(xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i)) + yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i))))
So, after using the distributive property, we would endup with something like this -
K = (2*pi*1j/lambda)
part1 = K*xm(p)*sin(thetas(j))*cos(phis(i));
part2 = K*yn(q)*sin(thetas(j))*sin(phis(i));
AF(i,j) = AF(i,j) + cmpWeights(q,p)*exp(part1)*exp(part2);
Thus, the relevant vectorized approach would become something like this -
%// 1) Define vectors corresponding to iterators used in the loopy version
I = 1:phiCount;
J = 1:thetaCount;
P = 1:M;
Q = 1:N;
%// 2) Define the constant used at the start of EXP() call
K = (2*pi*1j/lambda);
%// 3) Perform the sine-cosine operations part1 & part2 in vectorized manners
mult1 = K*bsxfun(#times,sin(thetas(J)),cos(phis(I)).'); %//'
mult2 = K*bsxfun(#times,sin(thetas(J)),sin(phis(I)).'); %//'
%// Perform exp(part1) & exp(part2) in vectorized manners
part1_vect = exp(bsxfun(#times,mult1(:),xm));
part2_vect = exp(bsxfun(#times,mult2(:),yn));
%// Perform multiplications with cmpWeights for final output
AF = reshape(sum((part1_vect*cmpWeights.').*part2_vect,2),phiCount,[])
Quick Benchmarking
Here are the runtimes with the input data listed in the question for the original loopy approach and proposed approach #2 -
---------------------------- With Original Approach
Elapsed time is 358.081507 seconds.
---------------------------- With Proposed Approach #2
Elapsed time is 0.405038 seconds.
The runtimes suggests a crazy performance improvement with Approach #2!
The basic trick is to figure out what things are constant, and what things depend on the subscript term - and therefore are matrix terms.
Within the sum:
C(n,m) is a matrix
2π/λ is a constant
sin(θ)cos(φ) is a constant
x(m) and y(n) are vectors
So the two things I would do are:
Expand the xm and ym into matrices using meshgrid()
Take all the constant term stuff outside the loop.
Like this:
...
piFactor = 2 * pi * 1j / lambda;
[xgrid, ygrid] = meshgrid(xm, ym); % xgrid and ygrid will be size (N, M)
for i = 1:phiCount
for j = 1:thetaCount
xFactor = sin(thetas(j)) * cos(phis(i));
yFactor = sin(thetas(j)) * sin(phis(i));
expFactor = exp(piFactor * (xgrid * xFactor + ygrid * yFactor)); % expFactor is size (N, M)
elements = cmpWeights .* expFactor; % elements of sum, size (N, M)
AF(i, j) = AF(i, j) + sum(elements(:)); % sum and then integrate.
end
end
You could probably figure out how to vectorise the outer loop too, but hopefully that gives you a starting point.