I'm trying to calculate sin(x) using Taylor series without using factorials.
import math, time
import matplotlib.pyplot as plot
def sin3(x, i=30):
x %= 2 * math.pi
n = 0
dn = x**2 / 2
for c in range(4, 2 * i + 4, 2):
n += dn
dn *= -x**2 / ((c + 1) * (c + 2))
return x - n
def draw_graph(start = -800, end = 800):
y = [sin3(i/100) for i in range(start, end)]
x = [i/100 for i in range(start, end)]
y2 = [math.sin(i/100) for i in range(start, end)]
x2 = [i/100 for i in range(start, end)]
plot.fill_between(x, y, facecolor="none", edgecolor="red", lw=0.7)
plot.fill_between(x2, y2, facecolor="none", edgecolor="blue", lw=0.7)
plot.show()
When you run the draw_graph function it uses matplotlib to draw a graph, the redline is the output from my sin3 function, and the blue line is the correct output from the math.sin method.
As you can see the curve is not quite right, it's not high or low enough (seems to peak at 0.5), and also has strange behavior where it generates a small peak around 0.25 then drops down again. How can I adjust my function to match the correct output of math.sin?
You have the wrong equation for sin(x), and you also have a messed up loop invariant.
The formula for sin(x) is x/1! - x^3/3! + x^5/5! - x^7/7!..., so I really don't know why you're initializing dn to something involving x^2.
You also want to ask yourself: What is my loop invariant? What is the value of dn when I reach the start of my loop. It is clear from the way you update dn that you expect it to be something involving x^i / i!. Yet on the very first iteration of the loop, i=4, yet dn involves x^2.
Here is what you meant to write:
def sin3(x, i=30):
x %= 2 * math.pi
n = 0
dn = x
for c in range(1, 2 * i + 4, 2):
n += dn
dn *= -x**2 / ((c + 1) * (c + 2))
return n
Related
I want to use the Riemann method to evaluate numerically an partial integral in Python. I would like to integrate with respect to x and find a function of t, but i don't know how do this
My fonction : f(x) = cos(2*pi*x*t) its primitive between [-1/2,1/2]: f(t) = sin(pi*t)/t
def riemann(a, b, dx):
if a > b:
a,b = b,a
n = int((b - a) / dx)
s = 0.0
x = a
for i in range(n):
f_i[k] = np.cos(2*np.pi*x)
s += f_i[k]
x += dx
f_i = s * dx
return f_i,t
There's nothing too horrible about your approach. The result does come out close to the true value:
import numpy as np
def riemann(a, b, dx):
if a > b:
a, b = b, a
n = int((b - a) / dx)
s = 0.0
x = a
for i in range(n):
s += np.cos(2 * np.pi * x)
x += dx
return s * dx
print(riemann(0.0, 0.25, 1.0e-3))
print(1 / (2 * np.pi))
0.15965441949277526
0.15915494309189535
Some remarks:
You wouldn't call this Riemann method. It's the midpoint method (of numerical integration).
Pay a little more attention at the boundaries of your domain. Right now, your numerical domain is [a - dx, b + dx].
If you're looking for speed, best collect all your x values (perhaps with linspace), evaluate the function once with all the points, and then np.sum the values up. (Loops in Python are slow.)
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()
I will very briefly try to explain what I'm doing to those who are less experienced with mathematics, it's really quite simple.
We are trying to fill a grid, as follows:
We find the orange point, U(j,n+1), using three points in a row below it, U(j-1,n), U(j,n), U(j,n+1)
Where the value of U in the entire bottom row is given, and is periodic. So theoretically we can fill this entire grid.
The formula for calculating the orange point is:
U(j,n+1) = U(j,n) + (delta_t / (2 * delta_x)) * (U(j+1,n) - U(j-1,n))
We can write it easily as a system of linear equations as follows:
And now we just repeat this process of multiplying by this matrix (iterating through the time variable) as much as we want. That's a simple way to numerically approximate a solution to a partial differential equation.
I wrote a code that does this, and then I compare my final row, to the known solution of the differential equation.
This is the code
import math
import numpy
def f(x):
return math.cos(2 * math.pi * x)
def solution(x, t):
return math.cos(2 * math.pi * (x + t))
# setting everything up
N = 16
Lambda = 10 ** (-20)
Delta_x = 1/(N+1)
Delta_t = Lambda * Delta_x * Delta_x
t_f = 5
v_0 = numpy.zeros((N, 1))
# Filling first row, initial condition was given
for i in range(N):
v_0[i, 0] = f(i * Delta_x)
# Create coefficient matrix
M = numpy.zeros((N, N))
for i in range(N):
M[i, i - 1] = -Delta_t / (2 * Delta_x)
M[i, i] = 1
M[i, (i + 1) % N] = Delta_t / (2 * Delta_x)
# start iterating through time
v_i = v_0
for i in range(math.floor(t_f / Delta_t) - 1):
v_i = numpy.dot(M, v_i)
v_final = v_i
if (Delta_t * math.ceil(t_f / Delta_t) != t_f): #we don't reach t_f exactly using Delta_t
v_final = (1/2) * (v_i + numpy.dot(M, v_i))
u = numpy.zeros(v_final.shape)
for i in range(N):
u[i, 0] = solution(i * Delta_x, t_f)
for x in range(v_final.shape[0]):
print (v_final[x], u[x])
theoretically speaking, I should be able to find lambda small enough such that v_final and the known solution, u, will be very similar.
But I can't. No matter how small I make lambda, how finde I make the grid, I seem to converge to something incorrect. They aren't close.
I can't for the life of me figure out the problem.
Does anyone have an idea what might be wrong?
You should have Delta_x = 1.0/N, as you divide the interval into N cells.
You get N+1 points on the grid from u[0] to u[N], but as per boundary condition u[N]=u[0], there you also only use an array of length N to hold all the node values.
Per your given formulas you have gamma = dt/(2*dx), thus the reverse computation should be dt = gamma*2*dx or in your variable names
Delta_t = Lambda * 2 * Delta_x
Or you are aiming at the error of the method which is O(dt, dx²) so that it would make sense to have dt = c*dx^2, but not with a ridiculous factor like of c=1e-20, if you want the time discretization error small against the space discretization error, c=0.1 or c=0.01 should be sufficient.
import numpy as np
def f(x):
return np.cos(2 * np.pi * x)
def solution(x, t):
return f(x + t)
# setting everything up
N_x = 16
Lambda = 1e-2
Delta_x = 1./N_x
Delta_t = Lambda * Delta_x * Delta_x
t_f = 5
N_t = int(t_f/Delta_t+0.5); t_f = N_t*Delta_t
# Filling first row, initial condition was given
x = np.arange(0,N_x,1) * Delta_x
v_0 = f(x)
# Create coefficient matrix
M = np.zeros((N_x, N_x))
for i in range(N_x):
M[i, i - 1] = -Delta_t / (2 * Delta_x)
M[i, i] = 1
M[i, (i + 1) % N_x] = Delta_t / (2 * Delta_x)
# start iterating through time
v_i = v_0[:]
for i in range(N_t):
v_i = np.dot(M, v_i)
v_final = v_i
u = solution(x, t_f)
for vx, ux in zip(v_final, u):
print (vx, ux)
The Euler method is also not the most precise method, the expected error is in the range exp(L*t_f)*dx^2 = e^5/N_x^2=0.58 for N_x=16 where L=1 was taken as approximate Lipschitz constant. Now if you increase to N_x=50 this error estimate reduces to 0.06 which is also visible in the results.
The t exact solution of the x discretized problem is cos(2*pi*(x+c*t)) where c=sin(2*pi*dx)/(2*pi*dx). If you compare against that formula, the errors should be really small of size O(dt).
I have written a program to solve the Heat Equation (u_t = k * u_xx) numerically by method of Finite Differences.
For my problem, u is function of x and t, where 0 < x < L and t > 0. I have specified L = 1 (the length of the rod) and the terminal time T = 10 seconds for my problem, so I would like for the graph to be displayed on the domain (x,t) \in {(0,1) x (0, 10)}. However, my axes just don't make sense. It is plotting the x-axis from values of 0 - 40 and the t-axis is showing -0.25 - 0.00.
How can I edit my code so that when I plot u which depends on x, t the graph will display for values of x ranging from 0 - 1 and t ranging from 0 - 10 seconds??
Thanks in advance for any and all help. it is very greatly appreciated. Here is the code I am working with:
## This program is to implement a Finite Difference method approximation
## to solve the Heat Equation, u_t = k * u_xx,
## in 1D w/out sources & on a finite interval 0 < x < L. The PDE
## is subject to B.C: u(0,t) = u(L,t) = 0,
## and the I.C: u(x,0) = f(x).
import numpy as np
import matplotlib.pyplot as plt
# Parameters
L = 1 # length of the rod
T = 10 # terminal time
N = 40 # spatial values
M = 1600 # time values/hops; (M ~ N^2)
s = 0.25 # s := k * ( (dt) / (dx)^2 )
# uniform mesh
x_init = 0
x_end = L
dx = float(x_end - x_init) / N
x = np.arange(x_init, x_end, dx)
x[0] = x_init
# time discretization
t_init = 0
t_end = T
dt = float(t_end - t_init) / M
t = np.arange(t_init, t_end, dt)
t[0] = t_init
# time-vector
for m in xrange(0, M):
t[m] = m * dt
# spatial-vector
for j in xrange(0, N):
x[j] = j * dx
# definition of the solution u(x,t) to u_t = k * u_xx
u = np.zeros((N, M+1)) # array to store values of the solution
# Finite Difference Scheme:
u[:,0] = x * (x - 1) #initial condition
for m in xrange(0, M):
for j in xrange(1, N-1):
if j == 1:
u[j-1,m] = 0 # Boundary condition
elif j == N-1:
u[j+1,m] = 0 # Boundary Condition
else:
u[j,m+1] = u[j,m] + s * ( u[j+1,m] -
2 * u[j,m] + u[j-1,m] )
# for graph
print u, x, t
plt.plot(u)
plt.title('Finite Difference Approx. to Heat Equation')
plt.xlabel('x-axis')
plt.ylabel('time (seconds)')
plt.axis()
plt.show()
It appears that whatever displays for the x-axis reflects the number of step sizes in space that I take (N = 40) for my code. I thought np.arange(x_init, x_end, dx) would return evenly spaced values within the interval (x_init, x_end) with step size dx? So what am I doing wrong? Thanks again.
You have some issues with your code as your u turns out to be 40x1601 and not 40x1600. However, I think the plot you may be after (after correcting u) is
corrected_u = u[:,:-1:]
plt.pcolor(t, x, corrected_u)
I try to implement the Fourier series function according to the following formulas:
...where...
...and...
Here is my approach to the problem:
import numpy as np
import pylab as py
# Define "x" range.
x = np.linspace(0, 10, 1000)
# Define "T", i.e functions' period.
T = 2
L = T / 2
# "f(x)" function definition.
def f(x):
return np.sin(np.pi * 1000 * x)
# "a" coefficient calculation.
def a(n, L, accuracy = 1000):
a, b = -L, L
dx = (b - a) / accuracy
integration = 0
for i in np.linspace(a, b, accuracy):
x = a + i * dx
integration += f(x) * np.cos((n * np.pi * x) / L)
integration *= dx
return (1 / L) * integration
# "b" coefficient calculation.
def b(n, L, accuracy = 1000):
a, b = -L, L
dx = (b - a) / accuracy
integration = 0
for i in np.linspace(a, b, accuracy):
x = a + i * dx
integration += f(x) * np.sin((n * np.pi * x) / L)
integration *= dx
return (1 / L) * integration
# Fourier series.
def Sf(x, L, n = 10):
a0 = a(0, L)
sum = 0
for i in np.arange(1, n + 1):
sum += ((a(i, L) * np.cos(n * np.pi * x)) + (b(i, L) * np.sin(n * np.pi * x)))
return (a0 / 2) + sum
# x axis.
py.plot(x, np.zeros(np.size(x)), color = 'black')
# y axis.
py.plot(np.zeros(np.size(x)), x, color = 'black')
# Original signal.
py.plot(x, f(x), linewidth = 1.5, label = 'Signal')
# Approximation signal (Fourier series coefficients).
py.plot(x, Sf(x, L), color = 'red', linewidth = 1.5, label = 'Fourier series')
# Specify x and y axes limits.
py.xlim([0, 10])
py.ylim([-2, 2])
py.legend(loc = 'upper right', fontsize = '10')
py.show()
...and here is what I get after plotting the result:
I've read the How to calculate a Fourier series in Numpy? and I've implemented this approach already. It works great, but it use the expotential method, where I want to focus on trigonometry functions and the rectangular method in case of calculating the integraions for a_{n} and b_{n} coefficients.
Thank you in advance.
UPDATE (SOLVED)
Finally, here is a working example of the code. However, I'll spend more time on it, so if there is anything that can be improved, it will be done.
from __future__ import division
import numpy as np
import pylab as py
# Define "x" range.
x = np.linspace(0, 10, 1000)
# Define "T", i.e functions' period.
T = 2
L = T / 2
# "f(x)" function definition.
def f(x):
return np.sin((np.pi) * x) + np.sin((2 * np.pi) * x) + np.sin((5 * np.pi) * x)
# "a" coefficient calculation.
def a(n, L, accuracy = 1000):
a, b = -L, L
dx = (b - a) / accuracy
integration = 0
for x in np.linspace(a, b, accuracy):
integration += f(x) * np.cos((n * np.pi * x) / L)
integration *= dx
return (1 / L) * integration
# "b" coefficient calculation.
def b(n, L, accuracy = 1000):
a, b = -L, L
dx = (b - a) / accuracy
integration = 0
for x in np.linspace(a, b, accuracy):
integration += f(x) * np.sin((n * np.pi * x) / L)
integration *= dx
return (1 / L) * integration
# Fourier series.
def Sf(x, L, n = 10):
a0 = a(0, L)
sum = np.zeros(np.size(x))
for i in np.arange(1, n + 1):
sum += ((a(i, L) * np.cos((i * np.pi * x) / L)) + (b(i, L) * np.sin((i * np.pi * x) / L)))
return (a0 / 2) + sum
# x axis.
py.plot(x, np.zeros(np.size(x)), color = 'black')
# y axis.
py.plot(np.zeros(np.size(x)), x, color = 'black')
# Original signal.
py.plot(x, f(x), linewidth = 1.5, label = 'Signal')
# Approximation signal (Fourier series coefficients).
py.plot(x, Sf(x, L), '.', color = 'red', linewidth = 1.5, label = 'Fourier series')
# Specify x and y axes limits.
py.xlim([0, 5])
py.ylim([-2.2, 2.2])
py.legend(loc = 'upper right', fontsize = '10')
py.show()
Consider developing your code in a different way, block by block. You should be surprised if a code like this would work at the first try. Debugging is one option, as #tom10 said. The other option is rapid prototyping the code step by step in the interpreter, even better with ipython.
Above, you are expecting that b_1000 is non-zero, since the input f(x) is a sinusoid with a 1000 in it. You're also expecting that all other coefficients are zero right?
Then you should focus on the function b(n, L, accuracy = 1000) only. Looking at it, 3 things are going wrong. Here are some hints.
the multiplication of dx is within the loop. Sure about that?
in the loop, i is supposed to be an integer right? Is it really an integer? by prototyping or debugging you would discover this
be careful whenever you write (1/L) or a similar expression. If you're using python2.7, you're doing likely wrong. If not, at least use a from __future__ import division at the top of your source. Read this PEP if you don't know what I am talking about.
If you address these 3 points, b() will work. Then think of a in a similar fashion.