Develop Reference

Calculating a definite integral with variable boundaries in Python

I have been currently working on calculating a definite integral. I need to obtain some numerical outputs, but I cannot. My two attempts to solve the integral are below. How can I run one of these methods below?
My first way to calculate the integral is
import numpy as np
from sympy import *
Nt = 17
alpha = .99
t = np.linspace(0, .85, Nt)
s = np.linspace(0, .85, Nt)
for k in range(Nt):
for i in range(k):
Int = integrate( (t[k] - s) ** - int(alpha), (s, t[i], t[i + 1] ))
print(Int)
Error:
ValueError: Invalid limits given: ((array([0. , 0.053125, 0.10625 , 0.159375, 0.2125 , 0.265625,
0.31875 , 0.371875, 0.425 , 0.478125, 0.53125 , 0.584375,
0.6375 , 0.690625, 0.74375 , 0.796875, 0.85 ]), 0.0, 0.053125),)
My second way is
import numpy as np
from sympy import *
from numba import jit, prange
Nt = 17
alpha = .99
t = np.linspace(0, .85, Nt)
s = np.linspace(0, .85, Nt)
#jit(nopython=True)
def Int(alpha):
Int = 0
for k in prange(Nt):
for i in prange(k):
Int = Int + integrate( (t[k] - s) ** - int(alpha), (s, t[i], t[i + 1] ))
print(Int)
return Int
There is no any outputs. 
EDIT: For my first way, I made a small change and got some numerical results. I am not sure about the result. Any comments are still welcome.
Nt = 17
alpha = .99
t = np.linspace(0, .85, Nt)
s = symbols('s')
for k in range(Nt):
for i in range(k):
Int = integrate((t[k] - s) ** - int(alpha), (s, t[i], t[i + 1] ))
print(Int)
Output:
0.0531250000000000
0.0531250000000000
0.0531250000000000
0.0531250000000000...

If you use SymPy you can get a symbolic expression:
>>> var('s t e ti tj');i=integrate(1/(t-s)**e,(t,ti,tj));i
Piecewise(
((t - ti)**(1 - e)/(1 - e) - (t - tj)**(1 - e)/(1 - e),
(e > -oo) & (e < oo) & Ne(e, 1)),
(log(t - ti) - log(t - tj),
True))
With e = -int(.99) = 0 -- are you sure that is what you want? -- this is
>>> i0 = i.subs(e,-int(.99)); i0
-ti + tj
In this case, the integral does not depend on t, only the difference in the limits. As Oscar says, you can now just substitute in values of interest. Or, knowing that it is just the difference of points, you could compute those differences directly:
>>> ts = [.85/16*_ for _ in range(17)]
>>> i0.subs({ti:ts[0], tj:ts[1]})
0.053125
>>> ts[1] - ts[0]
0.053125
This is the same that you got. You now (hopefully) understand why you were getting the same value every time.

Overflow and Invalid Values encountered in double scalars - Nonlinear PDE Solving

I am seeking to find a finite difference solution to the 1D Nonlinear PDE
u_t = u_xx + u(u_x)^2
Code:
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
from mpl_toolkits.mplot3d import Axes3D
from matplotlib import cm
import math
'''
We explore three different numerical methods for solving the PDE, with solution u(x, t),
u_t = u_xx + u(u_x)^2
for (x, t) in (0, 1) . (0, 1/5)
u(x, 0) = 40 * x^2 * (1 - x) / 3
u(0, t) = u(1, t) = 0
'''
M = 30
dx = 1 / M
r = 0.25
dt = r * dx**2
N = math.floor(0.2 / dt)
x = np.linspace(0, 1, M + 1)
t = np.linspace(0, 0.2, N + 1)
U = np.zeros((M + 1, N + 1)) # Initial array for solution u(x, t)
U[:, 0] = 40 * x**2 * (1 - x) / 3 # Initial condition (: for the whole of that array)
U[0, :] = 0 # Boundary condition at x = 0
U[-1, :] = 0 # Boundary condition at x = 1 (-1 means end of the array)
'''
Explicit Scheme - Simple Forward Difference Scheme
'''
for q in range(0, N - 1):
for p in range(0, M - 1):
b = 1 / (1 - 2 * r)
C = r * U[p, q] * (U[p + 1, q] - U[p, q])**2
U[p, q + 1] = b * (U[p, q] + r * (U[p + 1, q + 1] + U[p - 1, q + 1]) - C)
T, X = np.meshgrid(t, x)
fig = plt.figure()
ax = fig.gca(projection='3d')
surf = ax.plot_surface(T, X, U)
#fig.colorbar(surf, shrink=0.5, aspect=5) # colour bar for reference
ax.set_xlabel('t')
ax.set_ylabel('x')
ax.set_zlabel('u(x, t)')
plt.tight_layout()
plt.savefig('FDExplSol.png', bbox_inches='tight')
plt.show()
The code I use produces the following error:
overflow encountered in double_scalars
C = r * U[p, q] * (U[p + 1, q] - U[p, q])**2
invalid value encountered in double_scalars
U[p, q + 1] = b * (U[p, q] + r * (U[p + 1, q + 1] + U[p - 1, q + 1]) - C)
invalid value encountered in double_scalars
C = r * U[p, q] * (U[p + 1, q] - U[p, q])**2
Z contains NaN values. This may result in rendering artifacts.
surf = ax.plot_surface(T, X, U)
I've looked up these errors and I assume that the square term generates values too small for the dtype. However when I try changing the dtype to account for a larger range of numbers (np.complex128) I get the same error.
The resulting plot obviously has most of its contents missing. So, my question is, what do I do?

Discretisation expression was incorrect.
Should be
for q in range(0, N - 1):
for p in range(0, M - 1):
U[p, q + 1] = r * (U[p + 1, q] - 2 * U[p, q] + U[p - 1, q]) + r * U[p, q] * (U[p + 1, q] - U[p, q])

Graphing Intergration in Python

In the following code I have implemented Simpsons Rule in Python. I have attempted to plot the absolute error as a function of n for a suitable range of integer values n. I know that the exact result should be 1-cos(pi/2). However my graph doesn't seem to be correct. How can I fix my code to get the correct output? there were two loops and I don't think I implemented my graph coding correctly
def simpson(f, a, b, n):
"""Approximates the definite integral of f from a to b by the composite Simpson's rule, using n subintervals (with n even)"""
h = (b - a) / (n)
s = f(a) + f(b)
diffs = {}
for i in range(1, n, 2):
s += 4 * f(a + i * h)
for i in range(2, n-1, 2):
s += 2 * f(a + i * h)
r = s
exact = 1 - cos(pi/2)
diff = abs(r - exact)
diffs[n] = diff
ordered = sorted(diffs.items())
x,y = zip(*ordered)
plt.autoscale()
plt.loglog(x,y)
plt.xlabel("Intervals")
plt.ylabel("Error")
plt.show()
return s * h / 3
simpson(lambda x: sin(x), 0.0, pi/2, 100)

Your simpson method should just calculate the integral for a single value of n (as it does), but creating the plot for many values of n should be outside that method. as:
from math import pi, cos, sin
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
def simpson(f, a, b, n):
"""Approximates the definite integral of f from a to b by the composite Simpson's rule, using 2n subintervals """
h = (b - a) / (2*n)
s = f(a) + f(b)
for i in range(1, 2*n, 2):
s += 4 * f(a + i * h)
for i in range(2, 2*n-1, 2):
s += 2 * f(a + i * h)
return s * h / 3
diffs = {}
exact = 1 - cos(pi/2)
for n in range(1, 100):
result = simpson(lambda x: sin(x), 0.0, pi/2, n)
diffs[2*n] = abs(exact - result) # use 2*n or n here, your choice.
ordered = sorted(diffs.items())
x,y = zip(*ordered)
plt.autoscale()
plt.loglog(x,y)
plt.xlabel("Intervals")
plt.ylabel("Error")
plt.show()

Integrate a function by the trapezoidal rule- Python

Here is the homework assignment I'm trying to solve:
A further improvement of the approximate integration method from the last question is to divide the area under the f(x) curve into n equally-spaced trapezoids.
Based on this idea, the following formula can be derived for approximating the integral:
!(https://www.dropbox.com/s/q84mx8r5ml1q7n1/Screenshot%202017-10-01%2016.09.32.png?dl=0)!
where h is the width of the trapezoids, h=(b−a)/n, and xi=a+ih,i∈0,...,n, are the coordinates of the sides of the trapezoids. The figure above visualizes the idea of the trapezoidal rule.
Implement this formula in a Python function trapezint( f,a,b,n ). You may need to check and see if b > a, otherwise you may need to swap the variables.
For instance, the result of trapezint( math.sin,0,0.5*math.pi,10 ) should be 0.9979 (with some numerical error). The result of trapezint( abs,-1,1,10 ) should be 2.0
This is my code but It doesn't seem to return the right values.
For print ((trapezint( math.sin,0,0.5*math.pi,10)))
I get 0.012286334153465965, when I am suppose to get 0.9979
For print (trapezint(abs, -1, 1, 10))
I get 0.18000000000000002, when I am suppose to get 1.0.
import math
def trapezint(f,a,b,n):
g = 0
if b>a:
h = (b-a)/float(n)
for i in range (0,n):
k = 0.5*h*(f(a+i*h) + f(a + (i+1)*h))
g = g + k
return g
else:
a,b=b,a
h = (b-a)/float(n)
for i in range(0,n):
k = 0.5*h*(f(a + i*h) + f(a + (i + 1)*h))
g = g + k
return g
print ((trapezint( math.sin,0,0.5*math.pi,10)))
print (trapezint(abs, -1, 1, 10))

Essentially, your return g statement was indented, when it should not have been.
Also, I removed your duplicated code, so it would adhere to "DRY" "Don't Repeat Yourself" principle, which prevents errors, and keeps code simplified and more readable.
import math
def trapezint(f, a, b, n):
g = 0
if b > a:
h = (b-a)/float(n)
else:
h = (a-b)/float(n)
for i in range (0, n):
k = 0.5 * h * ( f(a + i*h) + f(a + (i+1)*h) )
g = g + k
return g
print ( trapezint( math.sin, 0, 0.5*math.pi, 10) )
print ( trapezint(abs, -1, 1, 10) )
0.9979429863543573
1.0000000000000002

This variation reduces the complexity of branches and reduces number of operations. The summation in last step is reduced to single operation on an array.
from math import pi, sin
def trapezoid(f, a, b, n):
if b < a:
a,b = b, a
h = (b - a)/float(n)
g = [(0.5 * h * (f(a + (i * h)) + f(a + ((i + 1) * h)))) for i in range(0, n)]
return sum(g)
assert trapezoid(sin, 0, 0.5*pi, 10) == 0.9979429863543573
assert trapezoid(abs, -1, 1, 10) == 1.0000000000000002

How to set up and solve simultaneous equations in python

For a fixed integer n, I have a set of 2(n-1) simultaneous equations as follows.
M(p) = 1+((n-p-1)/n)*M(n-1) + (2/n)*N(p-1) + ((p-1)/n)*M(p-1)
N(p) = 1+((n-p-1)/n)*M(n-1) + (p/n)*N(p-1)
M(1) = 1+((n-2)/n)*M(n-1) + (2/n)*N(0)
N(0) = 1+((n-1)/n)*M(n-1)
M(p) is defined for 1 <= p <= n-1. N(p) is defined for 0 <= p <= n-2. Notice also that p is just a constant integer in every equation so the whole system is linear.
I have been using Maple but I would like to set these up and solve them in python now, maybe using numpy.linalg.solve (or any other better method). I actually only want the value of M(n-1). For example, when n=2 the answer should be M(1) = 4, I believe. This is because the equations become
M(1) = 1+(2/2)*N(0)
N(0) = 1 + (1/2)*M(1)
Therefore
M(1)/2 = 1+1
and so
M(1) = 4.
If I want to plug in n=50, say, how can you set up this system of simultaneous equations in python so that numpy.linalg.solve can solve them?
Update The answers are great but they use dense solvers where the system of equations is sparse. Posted follow up to Using scipy sparse matrices to solve system of equations .

Updated: added implementation using scipy.sparse
This gives the solution in the order N_max,...,N_0,M_max,...,M_1.
The linear system to solve is of the shape A dot x == const 1-vector.
x is the sought after solution vector.
Here I ordered the equations such that x is N_max,...,N_0,M_max,...,M_1.
Then I build up the A-coefficient matrix from 4 block matrices.
Here's a snapshot for the example case n=50 showing how you can derive the coefficient matrix and understand the block structure. The coefficient matrix A is light blue, the constant right side is orange. The sought after solution vector x is here light green and used to label the columns. The first column show from which of the above given eqs. the row (= eq.) has been derived:
As Jaime suggested, multiplying by n improves the code. This is not reflected in the spreadsheet above but has been implemented in the code below:
Implementation using numpy:
import numpy as np
import numpy.linalg as linalg
def solve(n):
# upper left block
n_to_M = -2. * np.eye(n-1)
# lower left block
n_to_N = (n * np.eye(n-1)) - np.diag(np.arange(n-2, 0, -1), 1)
# upper right block
m_to_M = n_to_N.copy()
m_to_M[1:, 0] = -np.arange(1, n-1)
# lower right block
m_to_N = np.zeros((n-1, n-1))
m_to_N[:,0] = -np.arange(1,n)
# build A, combine all blocks
coeff_mat = np.hstack(
(np.vstack((n_to_M, n_to_N)),
np.vstack((m_to_M, m_to_N))))
# const vector, right side of eq.
const = n * np.ones((2 * (n-1),1))
return linalg.solve(coeff_mat, const)
Solution using scipy.sparse:
from scipy.sparse import spdiags, lil_matrix, vstack, hstack
from scipy.sparse.linalg import spsolve
import numpy as np
def solve(n):
nrange = np.arange(n)
diag = np.ones(n-1)
# upper left block
n_to_M = spdiags(-2. * diag, 0, n-1, n-1)
# lower left block
n_to_N = spdiags([n * diag, -nrange[-1:0:-1]], [0, 1], n-1, n-1)
# upper right block
m_to_M = lil_matrix(n_to_N)
m_to_M[1:, 0] = -nrange[1:-1].reshape((n-2, 1))
# lower right block
m_to_N = lil_matrix((n-1, n-1))
m_to_N[:, 0] = -nrange[1:].reshape((n-1, 1))
# build A, combine all blocks
coeff_mat = hstack(
(vstack((n_to_M, n_to_N)),
vstack((m_to_M, m_to_N))))
# const vector, right side of eq.
const = n * np.ones((2 * (n-1),1))
return spsolve(coeff_mat.tocsr(), const).reshape((-1,1))
Example for n=4:
[[ 7.25 ]
[ 7.76315789]
[ 8.10526316]
[ 9.47368421] # <<< your result
[ 9.69736842]
[ 9.78947368]]
Example for n=10:
[[ 24.778976 ]
[ 25.85117842]
[ 26.65015984]
[ 27.26010007]
[ 27.73593401]
[ 28.11441922]
[ 28.42073207]
[ 28.67249606]
[ 28.88229939]
[ 30.98033266] # <<< your result
[ 31.28067182]
[ 31.44628982]
[ 31.53365219]
[ 31.57506477]
[ 31.58936225]
[ 31.58770694]
[ 31.57680467]
[ 31.560726 ]]

Here's an entirely different approach, using sympy. It's not fast, but it allows me to copy the RHS of your equations exactly, limiting the thinking I need to do (always a plus), and gives fractional answers.
from sympy import Integer, Symbol, Eq, solve
def build_equations(n):
ni = n
n = Integer(n)
Ms = {p: Symbol("M{}".format(p)) for p in range(ni)}
Ns = {p: Symbol("N{}".format(p)) for p in range(ni-1)}
M = lambda i: Ms[int(i)] if i >= 1 else 0
N = lambda i: Ns[int(i)]
M_eqs = {}
M_eqs[1] = Eq(M(1), 1+((n-2)/n)*M(n-1) + (2/n)*N(0))
for p in range(2, ni):
M_eqs[p] = Eq(M(p), 1+((n-p-1)/n)*M(n-1) + (2/n)*N(p-1) + ((p-1)/n)*M(p-1))
N_eqs = {}
N_eqs[0] = Eq(N(0), 1+((n-1)/n)*M(n-1))
for p in range(1, ni-1):
N_eqs[p] = Eq(N(p), 1+((n-p-1)/n)*M(n-1) + (p/n)*N(p-1))
return M_eqs.values() + N_eqs.values()
def solve_system(n, show=False):
eqs = build_equations(n)
sol = solve(eqs)
if show:
print 'equations:'
for eq in sorted(eqs):
print eq
print 'solution:'
for var, val in sorted(sol.items()):
print var, val, float(val)
return sol
which gives
>>> solve_system(2, True)
equations:
M1 == N0 + 1
N0 == M1/2 + 1
solution:
M1 4 4.0
N0 3 3.0
{M1: 4, N0: 3}
>>> solve_system(3, True)
equations:
M1 == M2/3 + 2*N0/3 + 1
M2 == M1/3 + 2*N1/3 + 1
N0 == 2*M2/3 + 1
N1 == M2/3 + N0/3 + 1
solution:
M1 34/5 6.8
M2 33/5 6.6
N0 27/5 5.4
N1 5 5.0
{M2: 33/5, M1: 34/5, N1: 5, N0: 27/5}
and
>>> solve_system(4, True)
equations:
M1 == M3/2 + N0/2 + 1
M2 == M1/4 + M3/4 + N1/2 + 1
M3 == M2/2 + N2/2 + 1
N0 == 3*M3/4 + 1
N1 == M3/2 + N0/4 + 1
N2 == M3/4 + N1/2 + 1
solution:
M1 186/19 9.78947368421
M2 737/76 9.69736842105
M3 180/19 9.47368421053
N0 154/19 8.10526315789
N1 295/38 7.76315789474
N2 29/4 7.25
{N2: 29/4, N1: 295/38, M1: 186/19, M3: 180/19, N0: 154/19, M2: 737/76}
which seems to match the other answers.

This is messy, but solves your problem, barring a very probable mistake transcribing the coefficients:
from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
n = 2
# Solution vector is [N[0], N[1], ..., N[n - 2], M[1], M[2], ..., M[n - 1]]
n_pos = lambda p : p
m_pos = lambda p : p + n - 2
A = np.zeros((2 * (n - 1), 2 * (n - 1)))
# p = 0
# N[0] + (1 - n) / n * M[n-1] = 1
A[n_pos(0), n_pos(0)] = 1 # N[0]
A[n_pos(0), m_pos(n - 1)] = (1 - n) / n #M[n - 1]
for p in xrange(1, n - 1) :
# M[p] + (1 + p - n) /n * M[n - 1] - 2 / n * N[p - 1] +
# (1 - p) / n * M[p - 1] = 1
A[m_pos(p), m_pos(p)] = 1 # M[p]
A[m_pos(p), m_pos(n - 1)] = (1 + p - n) / n # M[n - 1]
A[m_pos(p), n_pos(p - 1)] = -2 / n # N[p - 1]
if p > 1 :
A[m_pos(p), m_pos(p - 1)] = (1 - p) / n # M[p - 1]
# N[p] + (1 + p -n) / n * M[n - 1] - p / n * N[p - 1] = 1
A[n_pos(p), n_pos(p)] = 1 # N[p]
A[n_pos(p), m_pos(n - 1)] = (1 + p - n) / n # M[n - 1]
A[n_pos(p), n_pos(p - 1)] = -p / n # N[p - 1]
if n > 2 :
# p = n - 1
# M[n - 1] - 2 / n * N[n - 2] + (2 - n) / n * M[n - 2] = 1
A[m_pos(n - 1), m_pos(n - 1)] = 1 # M[n - 1]
A[m_pos(n - 1), n_pos(n - 2)] = -2 / n # N[n - 2]
A[m_pos(n - 1), m_pos(n - 2)] = (2 - n) / n # M[n - 2]
else :
# p = 1
#M[1] - 2 / n * N[0] = 1
A[m_pos(n - 1), m_pos(n - 1)] = 1
A[m_pos(n - 1), n_pos(n - 2)] = -2 / n
X = np.linalg.solve(A, np.ones((2 * (n - 1),)))
But it gives a solution of
>>> X[-1]
6.5999999999999979
for M(2) when n=3, which is not what you came up with.