i am seeking a solution for the following equation in Python.
345-0.25*t = 37.5 * x_a
'with'
t = max(0, 10-x_a)*(20-10) + max(0,25-5*x_a)*(3-4) + max(0,4-0.25*x_a)*(30-12.5)
'x_a = ??'
If there is more than one solution to the problem (I am not even sure, whether this can happen from a mathematical point of view?), I want my code to return a positive(!) value for x_a, that minimizes t.
With my previous knowledge in the Basics of Python, Pandas and NumPy I actually have no clue, how to tackle this problem. Can someone give me a hint?
For Clarification: I inserted some exemplary numbers in the equation to make it easier to gasp the problem. In my final code, there might of course be different numbers for different scenarios. However, in every scenario x_a is the only unknown variable.
Update
I thought about the problem again and came up with the following solution, which yields the same result as the calculations done by Michał Mazur:
import itertools
from sympy import Eq, Symbol, solve
import numpy as np
x_a = Symbol('x_a')
possible_elements = np.array([10-x_a, 25-5*x_a, 4-0.25*x_a])
assumptions = np.array(list(itertools.product([True, False], repeat=3)))
for assumption in assumptions:
x_a = Symbol('x_a')
elements = assumption.astype(int) * possible_elements
t = elements[0]*(20-10) + elements[1]*(3-4) + elements[2]*(30-12.5)
eqn = Eq(300-0.25*t, 40*x_a)
solution = solve(eqn)
if len(solution)>2:
print('Warning! the code may suppress possible solutions')
if len(solution)==1:
solution = solution[0]
if (((float(possible_elements[0].subs(x_a,solution))) > 0) == assumption[0]) &\
(((float(possible_elements[1].subs(x_a,solution))) > 0) == assumption[1]) &\
(((float(possible_elements[2].subs(x_a,solution)))> 0) == assumption[2]):
print('solution:', solution)
Compared to the already suggested approach this may have an little advantage as it does not rely on testing all possible values and therefore can be used for very small as well as very big solutions without taking a lot of time (?). However, it probably only is useful as long as you don't have more complex functions for t (even having for example 5 max(...) statements and therefore (2^5=)32 scenarios to test seems quite cumbersome).
As far as I'm concerned, I just realized that my problem is even more complex as i thought. For my project the calculations needed to derive the value of "t" are pretty entangled and can not be written in just one equation. However it still is a function, that only relies on x_a. So I am still hoping for a Python-Solution similar to the proposed Solver in Excel... or I will stick to the approach of simply testing out all possible numbers.
If you are interested in a solution a bit different than the Python one, then I will give you a hand. Open up your Excel, with Solver extention and plug in
the data you are interested in cheking, as the following:
Into the E2 you plug the command I just have writen, into E4 you plug in
=300-0,25*E2
Into the F4 you plug:
=40*F2
Then you open up your Solver menu
Into the Set Objective you put the variable t, which you want to minimize.
Into Changing Variables you put the a.
Into Constraint Menu you put the equality of E4 and F4 cells.
You check the "Make Unconstarained Variables be non-negative" which will prevent your a variable to go below 0. Your method of computing is strictly non-linear, so you leave this option there.
You click solve. The computed value is presented in the screen.
The python approach I can think of:
minimumval=10100
minxa=10000
eps=0.01
for i in range(100000):
k=i/10000
x_a=k
t = max(0, 10-x_a)*(20-10) + max(0,25-5*x_a)*(3-4) + max(0,4-0.25*x_a)*(30-12.5)
val=abs(300-0.25*t-40*x_a)
if (val<eps):
if t<minimumval:
minimumval=t
minxa=x_a
It isn't direct solution, as in it only controls the error that you make in the equality by eps value. However, it gives solution.
Related
I noticed the Z3 Solver library for python wasn't correctly reporting satisfiability for a problem involving exponents that I was working on. Specifically, it reported finding no solutions on cases where I knew a valid one -- unless I added constraints that effectively "told it the answer".
I simplified the problem to isolate it. In the code below, I'm asking it to find q and m such that q^m == 100. With the constraint 0 <= q < 100, you have, of course, q=10, m=2. But with the code below, it reports finding no solution (raise Z3Exception("model is not available")):
import z3.z3 as z
slv = z.Solver()
m = z.Int('m')
q = z.Int('q')
slv.add(100 == (q ** m))
slv.add(q >= 0)
slv.add(q < 100)
slv.add(m >= 0)
slv.add(m <= 100)
slv.check()
However, if you replace slv.add(m <= 100)) with slv.add(m <= 2) (or slv.add(m == 2)!), it has no problem finding the solution (of q=10, m=2).
Am I using Z3 wrong somehow?
I thought it would only report unsatisfiability ("model is not available") if it proved there was no solution and would otherwise hang while searching for a solution. Is that wrong? I didn't expect to be in a position where it only finds the solution if you shrink down the search space enough.
I haven't had this problem with any other operation besides exponentiation (e.g. addition, modulo, etc.).
You're misinterpreting what z3 is telling you. Change your line:
slv.check()
to:
print(slv.check())
print(slv.reason_unknown())
And you'll see it prints:
unknown
smt tactic failed to show goal to be sat/unsat (incomplete (theory arithmetic))
So, z3 doesn't know if your problem is sat or unsat; so you cannot ask for a model. The reason for this is the power operator: It introduces non-linearity, and the theory of non-linear integer equations is undecidable in general. That is, z3's solver is incomplete for this problem. In practice, this means z3 will apply a bunch of heuristics, and will hopefully solve the problem for you. But you can get unknown as well, as you observed.
It's not surprising that if you add extra constraints you're helping the solver and thus it finds an answer. You're just helping it further and those heuristics have an easier time. With different versions of z3, you can observe different behavior. (i.e., in the future, they might be able to solve this problem out-of-the-box, or maybe the heuristics will get worse and you helping it this way won't resolve the issue either.) Such is the nature of automatic-theorem proving with undecidable theories.
Bottom line: Any call to check can return sat, unsat, or unknown. Your program should check for all three possibilities and interpret the output accordingly.
I am trying to minimize a function of 3 input variables using scipy. The function reads like so-
def myfunc(x):
x[0] = a
x[1] = b
x[2] = c
n = f(a,b,c)
return n
bound1 = (80,100)
bound2 = (10,20)
bound3 = (312,740)
guess = [a0,b0,c0]
bds = (bound1,bound2,bound3)
result = minimize(myfunc, guess,method='L-BFGS-B',bounds=bds)
The function I am trying to currently run reaches a minimum at a=100,b=10,c=740, which is at the end of the bounds.
The minimize function keeps trying to iterate past the end of bound 3 (gets to c0 value of 740.0000000149012 on its last iteration.
Is there any way to stop this from happening? i.e. stop the iteration at the actual end of my bound?
This happens due to numerical-differentiation, which itself is not only needed to infer the step-direction and size, but also to reason about termination.
In general you can't do much without being very careful in regards to whatever solver (and there are many backend-solvers) being used. The basic idea is to replace the automatic numerical-differentiation with one provided by you: this one then respects those bounds and must be careful about the solvers-internals, e.g. "how to reason about termination at this end".
Fix A:
Your problem should vanish automatically when using: Pull-request #10673, which touches your configuration: L-BFGS-B.
It seems, this PR is not part of the current release SciPy 1.4.1 (as this was 2 months before the PR).
See also #6026, where a milestone of 1.5.0 is mentioned in regards to some changes including respecting bounds in num-diff.
For above PR, you will need to install scipy from the sources, which is:
quite doable on linux (and maybe os x)
not something you should try on windows!
trust me...
See the documentation if needed.
Fix B:
Apart from that, as you are doing unconstrained-optimization (with variable-bounds) where more solver-backends are available (compared to constrained-optimization), you might try another solver, trust-constr, which has explicit support for this, see #9098.
Be careful to recognize, that you need to signal this explicitly when setting up the bounds!
I used sympy to derive, via lagrange, the equations of motion of my 3 link robot. The resultant equation of motion in the form (theta_dot_dot = f(theta, theta_dot)) turned out very complicated with A LOT of cos and sin. I then lambdified the functions to use with drake, replacing all the sympy.sin and sympy.cos with drake.sin, drake.cos.
The final function can be evaluated numerically (i.e. given theta, theta_dot, find theta_dot_dot) somewhat efficiently in the milliseconds range.
I then tried to use direct transcription to do trajectory optimization. Note I did not use the DirectTranscription library, instead manually added the necessary constraints.
The constraints are added roughly as follows:
for i in range(NUM_TIME_STEPS-1):
print("Adding constraints for t = " + str(i))
tau = mp.NewContinuousVariables(3, "tau_%d" % i)
next_state = mp.NewContinuousVariables(8, "state_%d" % (i+1))
for j in range(8):
mp.AddConstraint(next_state[j] <= (state_over_time[i] + TIME_INTERVAL*derivs(state_over_time[i], tau))[j])
mp.AddConstraint(next_state[j] >= (state_over_time[i] + TIME_INTERVAL*derivs(state_over_time[i], tau))[j])
state_over_time[i+1] = next_state
tau_over_time[i] = tau
The problem I'm facing right now is that on each iteration of adding constraints, I observe that my memory usage increases by around 70-100MB. This means that my number of time steps cannot go more than around 50 before the program crashes due to out of memory.
I'm wondering what I can do to make trajectory optimization work for my robot. Obviously I can try to simplify (by hand or otherwise) the equations of motions... but is there anything else I can try? Is it even normal that the constraints are taking up so much memory? Am I doing something very wrong here?
You're pushing drake's symbolic through your complex equations. Making that better is a good goal, but probably you want to avoid it by using the other overload for AddConstraint:
AddConstraint(your_method, lb, ub, vars)
https://drake.mit.edu/pydrake/pydrake.solvers.mathematicalprogram.html?highlight=addconstraint#pydrake.solvers.mathematicalprogram.MathematicalProgram.AddConstraint
That will use your python code as a function pointer, and should use autodiff instead of symbolic.
I need to write a semidefinite program that minimizes the trace of an operator, say R, subject to the constraint that tr_A(R)^{Tb} >>0 . That means that R represents a 3 qubit quantum system and the trace over the first system gives you an operator that represents the remaining 2 qubit systems. Taking the partial transpose with respect to one of the qubits, you get the partially transposed quantum state of the restricted 2 qubit system. It is this state that I want to make positive semidefinite.
I am using PICOS (to write the SDP) and qutip (to do the operations).
P = pic.Problem()
Rho = P.add_variable('Rho',(n,n),'hermitian')
P.add_constraint(pic.trace(Rho)==1)
P.add_constraint(Rho>>0)
RhoQOBJ = Qobj(Rho)
RhoABtr = ptrace(RhoQOBJ, [0,1])
RhoABqbj = partial_transpose(RhoABtr, [0], method='dense')
RhoAB = RhoABqbj.full()
Problem: I need to make Rho a Qobj, for qutip to be able to understand it, but Rho above is only an instance of the Variable class. Anyone has any idea on how to do this?
Also I looked here, http://picos.zib.de/tuto.html#variables , it became even more confusing as this function puts the instance in a dictionary and only gives you back a key.
You need to be able to output a numpy array or sparse matrix to convert to a Qobj. I could not find anything in the picos docs that discusses this option.
I am seeing this post very late, but maybe I can help... I am not sure what the function Qobj() is doing, can you please tell me more about it.
Otherwise, there is now a new partial_transpose() function in PICOS (version released today), which hopefully does what you need.
Best,
Guillaume.
I wrote the following code in python to solve
problem 15 from Project Euler:
grid_size = 2
def get_paths(node):
global paths
if node[0] >= grid_size and node[1] >= grid_size:
paths += 1
return
else:
if node[0]<grid_size+1 and node[1] < grid_size+1:
get_paths((node[0]+1,node[1]))
get_paths((node[0],node[1]+1))
return paths
def euler():
print get_paths((0,0))
paths = 0
if __name__ == '__main__':
euler()
Although it runs quite well for a 2 X 2 grid, it's been running for hours for a 20 X 20 grid. How can I optimise the code so that it can run on larger grids?
Is it a kind of breadth first search problem? (It seems so to me.)
How can I measure the complexity of my solution in its current form?
You might want to look into the maths behind this problem. It's not necessary to actually iterate through all routes. (In fact, you'll never make the 1 minute mark like that).
I can post a hint but won't do so unless you ask for it, since I wouldn't want to spoil it for you.
Edit:
Yes, the algorithm you're using will never really be optimal since there's no way to reduce the search space of your problem. This means that (as pg1989 stated) you'll have to look into alternative means of solving this problem.
As sverre said looking over here might give a nudge in the right direction:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binomial_coefficient
A direct solution may be found here (warning, big spoiler):
http://www.joaoff.com/2008/01/20/a-square-grid-path-problem/
Your algorithm is exponential, but only because you are re-evaluating get_paths with the same input many times. Adding Memoization to it will make it run in time. Also, you'll need to get rid of the global variable, and use return values instead. See also Dynamic Programming for a similar idea.
When solving problems on Project Euler, think about the math behind the problem for a long time before starting to code. This problem can be solved without any code whatsoever.
We're trying to count the number of ways through a grid. If you observe that the number of moves down and right do not change regardless of the path, then you only need to worry about the order in which you move down and right. So in the 2x2 case, the following combinations work:
DDRR
DRDR
RDRD
RRDD
RDDR
DRRD
Notice that if we pick where we put the R moves, the placement of the D moves is determined. So really we only have to choose, from the 4 movement slots available, which get the R moves. Can you think of a mathematical operation that does this?
Probably not the way the project Euler guys wanted this problem to be solved but the answer is just the central binomial coefficient of a 20x20 grid.
Using the formula provided at the wiki article you get:
from math import factorial, pow
grid = 20
print int(factorial(2 * grid) / pow(factorial(grid), 2))
The key is not to make your algorithm run faster, as it will (potentially) run in exponential time, no matter how fast each step is.
It is probably better to find another way of computing the answer. Using your (expensive, but correct) solution as a comparison for small values is probably a sanity-preserver during the algorithm optimization effort.
This question provides some good insight into optimization. The code is in c# but the algorithms are applicable. Watch out for spoilers, though.
Project Euler #15
It can be solved by simple observation of the pattern for small grids, and determining a straightforward formula for larger grids. There are over 100 billion paths for a 20x20 grid and any iterative solution will take too long to compute.
Here's my solution:
memo = {(0, 1) : 1, (1, 0) : 1}
def get_pathways(x, y):
if (x, y) in memo : return memo[(x, y)]
pathways = 0
if 0 in (x, y):
pathways = 1
else:
pathways = get_pathways(x-1, y) + get_pathways(x, y-1)
memo[(x, y)] = pathways
return pathways
enjoy :)