Suppose I have a function f(x) defined between a and b. This function can have many zeros, but also many asymptotes. I need to retrieve all the zeros of this function. What is the best way to do it?
Actually, my strategy is the following:
I evaluate my function on a given number of points
I detect whether there is a change of sign
I find the zero between the points that are changing sign
I verify if the zero found is really a zero, or if this is an asymptote
U = numpy.linspace(a, b, 100) # evaluate function at 100 different points
c = f(U)
s = numpy.sign(c)
for i in range(100-1):
if s[i] + s[i+1] == 0: # oposite signs
u = scipy.optimize.brentq(f, U[i], U[i+1])
z = f(u)
if numpy.isnan(z) or abs(z) > 1e-3:
continue
print('found zero at {}'.format(u))
This algorithm seems to work, except I see two potential problems:
It will not detect a zero that doesn't cross the x axis (for example, in a function like f(x) = x**2) However, I don't think it can occur with the function I'm evaluating.
If the discretization points are too far, there could be more that one zero between them, and the algorithm could fail finding them.
Do you have a better strategy (still efficient) to find all the zeros of a function?
I don't think it's important for the question, but for those who are curious, I'm dealing with characteristic equations of wave propagation in optical fiber. The function looks like (where V and ell are previously defined, and ell is an positive integer):
def f(u):
w = numpy.sqrt(V**2 - u**2)
jl = scipy.special.jn(ell, u)
jl1 = scipy.special.jnjn(ell-1, u)
kl = scipy.special.jnkn(ell, w)
kl1 = scipy.special.jnkn(ell-1, w)
return jl / (u*jl1) + kl / (w*kl1)
Why are you limited to numpy? Scipy has a package that does exactly what you want:
http://docs.scipy.org/doc/scipy/reference/optimize.nonlin.html
One lesson I've learned: numerical programming is hard, so don't do it :)
Anyway, if you're dead set on building the algorithm yourself, the doc page on scipy I linked (takes forever to load, btw) gives you a list of algorithms to start with. One method that I've used before is to discretize the function to the degree that is necessary for your problem. (That is, tune \delta x so that it is much smaller than the characteristic size in your problem.) This lets you look for features of the function (like changes in sign). AND, you can compute the derivative of a line segment (probably since kindergarten) pretty easily, so your discretized function has a well-defined first derivative. Because you've tuned the dx to be smaller than the characteristic size, you're guaranteed not to miss any features of the function that are important for your problem.
If you want to know what "characteristic size" means, look for some parameter of your function with units of length or 1/length. That is, for some function f(x), assume x has units of length and f has no units. Then look for the things that multiply x. For example, if you want to discretize cos(\pi x), the parameter that multiplies x (if x has units of length) must have units of 1/length. So the characteristic size of cos(\pi x) is 1/\pi. If you make your discretization much smaller than this, you won't have any issues. To be sure, this trick won't always work, so you may need to do some tinkering.
I found out it's relatively easy to implement your own root finder using the scipy.optimize.fsolve.
Idea: Find any zeroes from interval (start, stop) and stepsize step by calling the fsolve repeatedly with changing x0. Use relatively small stepsize to find all the roots.
Can only search for zeroes in one dimension (other dimensions must be fixed). If you have other needs, I would recommend using sympy for calculating the analytical solution.
Note: It may not always find all the zeroes, but I saw it giving relatively good results. I put the code also to a gist, which I will update if needed.
import numpy as np
import scipy
from scipy.optimize import fsolve
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
# Defined below
r = RootFinder(1, 20, 0.01)
args = (90, 5)
roots = r.find(f, *args)
print("Roots: ", roots)
# plot results
u = np.linspace(1, 20, num=600)
fig, ax = plt.subplots()
ax.plot(u, f(u, *args))
ax.scatter(roots, f(np.array(roots), *args), color="r", s=10)
ax.grid(color="grey", ls="--", lw=0.5)
plt.show()
Example output:
Roots: [ 2.84599497 8.82720551 12.38857782 15.74736542 19.02545276]
zoom-in:
RootFinder definition
import numpy as np
import scipy
from scipy.optimize import fsolve
from matplotlib import pyplot as plt
class RootFinder:
def __init__(self, start, stop, step=0.01, root_dtype="float64", xtol=1e-9):
self.start = start
self.stop = stop
self.step = step
self.xtol = xtol
self.roots = np.array([], dtype=root_dtype)
def add_to_roots(self, x):
if (x < self.start) or (x > self.stop):
return # outside range
if any(abs(self.roots - x) < self.xtol):
return # root already found.
self.roots = np.append(self.roots, x)
def find(self, f, *args):
current = self.start
for x0 in np.arange(self.start, self.stop + self.step, self.step):
if x0 < current:
continue
x = self.find_root(f, x0, *args)
if x is None: # no root found.
continue
current = x
self.add_to_roots(x)
return self.roots
def find_root(self, f, x0, *args):
x, _, ier, _ = fsolve(f, x0=x0, args=args, full_output=True, xtol=self.xtol)
if ier == 1:
return x[0]
return None
Test function
The scipy.special.jnjn does not exist anymore, but I created similar test function for the case.
def f(u, V=90, ell=5):
w = np.sqrt(V ** 2 - u ** 2)
jl = scipy.special.jn(ell, u)
jl1 = scipy.special.yn(ell - 1, u)
kl = scipy.special.kn(ell, w)
kl1 = scipy.special.kn(ell - 1, w)
return jl / (u * jl1) + kl / (w * kl1)
The main problem I see with this is if you can actually find all roots --- as have already been mentioned in comments, this is not always possible. If you are sure that your function is not completely pathological (sin(1/x) was already mentioned), the next one is what's your tolerance to missing a root or several of them. Put differently, it's about to what length you are prepared to go to make sure you did not miss any --- to the best of my knowledge, there is no general method to isolate all the roots for you, so you'll have to do it yourself. What you show is a reasonable first step already. A couple of comments:
Brent's method is indeed a good choice here.
First of all, deal with the divergencies. Since in your function you have Bessels in the denominators, you can first solve for their roots -- better look them up in e.g., Abramovitch and Stegun (Mathworld link). This will be a better than using an ad hoc grid you're using.
What you can do, once you've found two roots or divergencies, x_1 and x_2, run the search again in the interval [x_1+epsilon, x_2-epsilon]. Continue until no more roots are found (Brent's method is guaranteed to converge to a root, provided there is one).
If you cannot enumerate all the divergencies, you might want to be a little more careful in verifying a candidate is indeed a divergency: given x don't just check that f(x) is large, check that, e.g. |f(x-epsilon/2)| > |f(x-epsilon)| for several values of epsilon (1e-8, 1e-9, 1e-10, something like that).
If you want to make sure you don't have roots which simply touch zero, look for the extrema of the function, and for each extremum, x_e, check the value of f(x_e).
I've also encountered this problem to solve equations like f(z)=0 where f was an holomorphic function. I wanted to be sure not to miss any zero and finally developed an algorithm which is based on the argument principle.
It helps to find the exact number of zeros lying in a complex domain. Once you know the number of zeros, it is easier to find them. There are however two concerns which must be taken into account :
Take care about multiplicity : when solving (z-1)^2 = 0, you'll get two zeros as z=1 is counting twice
If the function is meromorphic (thus contains poles), each pole reduce the number of zero and break the attempt to count them.
Related
I'm facing a problem while trying to implement the coupled differential equation below (also known as single-mode coupling equation) in Python 3.8.3. As for the solver, I am using Scipy's function scipy.integrate.solve_bvp, whose documentation can be read here. I want to solve the equations in the complex domain, for different values of the propagation axis (z) and different values of beta (beta_analysis).
The problem is that it is extremely slow (not manageable) compared with an equivalent implementation in Matlab using the functions bvp4c, bvpinit and bvpset. Evaluating the first few iterations of both executions, they return the same result, except for the resulting mesh which is a lot greater in the case of Scipy. The mesh sometimes even saturates to the maximum value.
The equation to be solved is shown here below, along with the boundary conditions function.
import h5py
import numpy as np
from scipy import integrate
def coupling_equation(z_mesh, a):
ka_z = k # Global
z_a = z # Global
a_p = np.empty_like(a).astype(complex)
for idx, z_i in enumerate(z_mesh):
beta_zf_i = np.interp(z_i, z_a, beta_zf) # Get beta at the desired point of the mesh
ka_z_i = np.interp(z_i, z_a, ka_z) # Get ka at the desired point of the mesh
coupling_matrix = np.empty((2, 2), complex)
coupling_matrix[0] = [-1j * beta_zf_i, ka_z_i]
coupling_matrix[1] = [ka_z_i, 1j * beta_zf_i]
a_p[:, idx] = np.matmul(coupling_matrix, a[:, idx]) # Solve the coupling matrix
return a_p
def boundary_conditions(a_a, a_b):
return np.hstack(((a_a[0]-1), a_b[1]))
Moreover, I couldn't find a way to pass k, z and beta_zf as arguments of the function coupling_equation, given that the fun argument of the solve_bpv function must be a callable with the parameters (x, y). My approach is to define some global variables, but I would appreciate any help on this too if there is a better solution.
The analysis function which I am trying to code is:
def analysis(k, z, beta_analysis, max_mesh):
s11_analysis = np.empty_like(beta_analysis, dtype=complex)
s21_analysis = np.empty_like(beta_analysis, dtype=complex)
initial_mesh = np.linspace(z[0], z[-1], 10) # Initial mesh of 10 samples along L
mesh = initial_mesh
# a_init must be complex in order to solve the problem in a complex domain
a_init = np.vstack((np.ones(np.size(initial_mesh)).astype(complex),
np.zeros(np.size(initial_mesh)).astype(complex)))
for idx, beta in enumerate(beta_analysis):
print(f"Iteration {idx}: beta_analysis = {beta}")
global beta_zf
beta_zf = beta * np.ones(len(z)) # Global variable so as to use it in coupling_equation(x, y)
a = integrate.solve_bvp(fun=coupling_equation,
bc=boundary_conditions,
x=mesh,
y=a_init,
max_nodes=max_mesh,
verbose=1)
# mesh = a.x # Mesh for the next iteration
# a_init = a.y # Initial guess for the next iteration, corresponding to the current solution
s11_analysis[idx] = a.y[1][0]
s21_analysis[idx] = a.y[0][-1]
return s11_analysis, s21_analysis
I suspect that the problem has something to do with the initial guess that is being passed to the different iterations (see commented lines inside the loop in the analysis function). I try to set the solution of an iteration as the initial guess for the following (which must reduce the time needed for the solver), but it is even slower, which I don't understand. Maybe I missed something, because it is my first time trying to solve differential equations.
The parameters used for the execution are the following:
f2 = h5py.File(r'path/to/file', 'r')
k = np.array(f2['k']).squeeze()
z = np.array(f2['z']).squeeze()
f2.close()
analysis_points = 501
max_mesh = 1e6
beta_0 = 3e2;
beta_low = 0; # Lower value of the frequency for the analysis
beta_up = beta_0; # Upper value of the frequency for the analysis
beta_analysis = np.linspace(beta_low, beta_up, analysis_points);
s11_analysis, s21_analysis = analysis(k, z, beta_analysis, max_mesh)
Any ideas on how to improve the performance of these functions? Thank you all in advance, and sorry if the question is not well-formulated, I accept any suggestions about this.
Edit: Added some information about performance and sizing of the problem.
In practice, I can't find a relation that determines de number of times coupling_equation is called. It must be a matter of the internal operation of the solver. I checked the number of callings in one iteration by printing a line, and it happened in 133 ocasions (this was one of the fastests). This must be multiplied by the number of iterations of beta. For the analyzed one, the solver returned this:
Solved in 11 iterations, number of nodes 529.
Maximum relative residual: 9.99e-04
Maximum boundary residual: 0.00e+00
The shapes of a and z_mesh are correlated, since z_mesh is a vector whose length corresponds with the size of the mesh, recalculated by the solver each time it calls coupling_equation. Given that a contains the amplitudes of the progressive and regressive waves at each point of z_mesh, the shape of a is (2, len(z_mesh)).
In terms of computation times, I only managed to achieve 19 iterations in about 2 hours with Python. In this case, the initial iterations were faster, but they start to take more time as their mesh grows, until the point that the mesh saturates to the maximum allowed value. I think this is because of the value of the input coupling coefficients in that point, because it also happens when no loop in beta_analysisis executed (just the solve_bvp function for the intermediate value of beta). Instead, Matlab managed to return a solution for the entire problem in just 6 minutes, aproximately. If I pass the result of the last iteration as initial_guess (commented lines in the analysis function, the mesh overflows even faster and it is impossible to get more than a couple iterations.
Based on semi-random inputs, we can see that max_mesh is sometimes reached. This means that coupling_equation can be called with a quite big z_mesh and a arrays. The problem is that coupling_equation contains a slow pure-Python loop iterating on each column of the arrays. You can speed the computation up a lot using Numpy vectorization. Here is an implementation:
def coupling_equation_fast(z_mesh, a):
ka_z = k # Global
z_a = z # Global
a_p = np.empty(a.shape, dtype=np.complex128)
beta_zf_i = np.interp(z_mesh, z_a, beta_zf) # Get beta at the desired point of the mesh
ka_z_i = np.interp(z_mesh, z_a, ka_z) # Get ka at the desired point of the mesh
# Fast manual matrix multiplication
a_p[0] = (-1j * beta_zf_i) * a[0] + ka_z_i * a[1]
a_p[1] = ka_z_i * a[0] + (1j * beta_zf_i) * a[1]
return a_p
This code provides a similar output with semi-random inputs compared to the original implementation but is roughly 20 times faster on my machine.
Furthermore, I do not know if max_mesh happens to be big with your inputs too and even if this is normal/intended. It may make sense to decrease the value of max_mesh in order to reduce the execution time even more.
I've defined the following function as a method of approximating an integral using Boole's Rule:
def integrate_boole(f,l,r,N):
h=((r-l)/N)
xN = np.linspace(l,r,N+1)
fN = f(xN)
return ((2*h)/45)*(7*fN[0]+32*(np.sum(fN[1:-2:2]))+12*(np.sum(fN[2:-3:4]))+14*(np.sum(fN[4:-5]))+7*fN[-1])
I used the function to get the value of the integral for sin(x)dx between 0 and pi (where N=8) and assigned it to a variable sine_int.
The answer given was 1.3938101893248442
After doing the original equation (see here) out by hand I realised this answer was quite inaccurate.
The sums of fN are giving incorrect values, but I'm not sure why. For example, np.sum(fN[4:-5]) is going to 0.
Is there a better way of coding the sums involved, or is there an error in my parameters that's causing the calculations to be inaccurate?
Thanks in advance.
EDIT
I should have made it clearer that this is supposed to be a composite version of the rule, i.e. approximating over N points where N is divisible by 4. So the typical 5 points with 4 intervals isn't going to cut it here, unfortunately. I would copy the equation I'm using into here, but I don't have an image of it and LaTex isn't an option. It should/might be clear from the code I have after return.
From a quick inspection looks like the term multiplying f(x_4) should be 32, not 14:
def integrate_boole(f,l,r,N):
h=((r-l)/N)
xN = np.linspace(l,r,N+1)
fN = f(xN)
return ((2*h)/45)*(7*fN[0]+32*(np.sum(fN[1:-2:2]))+
12*(np.sum(fN[2:-3:4]))+32*(np.sum(fN[4:-5]))+7*fN[-1])
First, one of your coefficients was wrong as pointed out by #nixon. Then, I think you do not really understand how the Boole's rule works - It approximates the integral of a function only using 5 points of the function. Hence, the terms like np.sum(fN[1:-2:2]) makes no sense. You only need five points, which you can obtain with xN = np.linspace(l,r,5). Your h is simply the distance between 2 of the contiguos points h = xN[1] - xN[0]. And then, easy peasy:
import numpy as np
def integrate_boole(f,l,r):
xN = np.linspace(l,r,5)
h = xN[1] - xN[0]
fN = f(xN)
return ((2*h)/45)*(7*fN[0]+32*fN[1]+12*fN[2]+32*fN[3]+7*fN[4])
def f(x):
return np.sin(x)
I = integrate_boole(f, 0, np.pi)
print(I) # Outputs 1.99857...
I'm not sure what you're hoping your code does w.r.t. Boole's rule. Why are you summing over samples of the function (i.e. np.sum(fN[2:-3:4]))? I think your N parameter is also not well defined and I'm not sure what it's supposed to represent. Maybe you're using another rule I'm not familiar with: I'll let you decide.
Regardless, here's an implementation of Boole's rule as Wikipedia defines it. Variables map to the Wikipedia version you linked:
def integ_boole(func, left, right):
h = (right - left) / 4
x1 = left
x2 = left + h
x3 = left + 2*h
x4 = left + 3*h
x5 = right # or left + 4h
result = (2*h / 45) * (7*func(x1) + 32*func(x2) + 12*func(x3) + 32*func(x4) + 7*func(x5))
return result
then, to test:
import numpy as np
print(integ_boole(np.sin, 0, np.pi))
outputs 1.9985707318238357, which is extremely close to the correct answer of 2.
HTH.
Is it possible to vectorize (or otherwise speedup) an element-wise optimization with NumPy (and SciPy)?
In the most abstract sense, I have a function, y, which is parabolically shaped and could be expressed basically as y=x^2+b*x+z, where x is an array of known values, and I want to find a z that makes the minimum value of y exactly zero (said another way, I want to find a value z that makes my parabola only have one zero). For this, I've chosen to implement a simple bisection-like method. The code for this is below:
import numpy as np
def find_single_root():
x = np.arange(-5, 6,0.1) # domain
z = 1 # initial guess
delta = 1 # initial step size
tol = 0.001 # tolerance
while True:
y = x**2-5*x+z
minimum = np.nanmin(y)
# update z
print(delta)
print(z)
if minimum > 0:
if delta > 0:
delta = -1*delta/2
z += delta
else:
if delta < 0:
delta = -1*delta/2
z += delta
# check if step is smaller than tolerance
if np.abs(delta) < tol:
return z
Now lets say x(v,w), and I want to create a 2D array of z values, where each is optimized. What I have right now is below (note, the new function definition and domain are as follows)
def find_single_root(v, w):
x = np.arange(-5*v/w, 6*w,0.1) # domain
... # rest of the function
vs = np.arange(1,5)
ws = np.arange(1,5)
zs = np.zeros((len(vs),len(ws)))
for i, v in enumerate(vs):
for j, w in enumerate(ws):
zs[i][j] = find_single_root(v,w)
Right now I just have these simple nested for loops, but is there a way I can approach this differently or speed it up with NumPy vectorizing?
Vectorization may be applicable when the computations to be performed are precisely known in advance. Like "take two arrays of numbers, and multiply them pairwise".
Vectorization is not applicable when the computations adapt to the given data. Any kind of optimization algorithm is adaptive, because where you look for the minimum depends on what the function returns. If you have a bunch of functions, and need to find the minimum of each, you are going to have to minimize them one at a time, in a loop. If this process is slow, it's because it takes long to minimize a bunch of function, not because there is a for loop in the program.
Concerning your program, I would try using some of SciPy methods for both minimization and root-finding. Have a function min_of_f(z) which finds the minimum for a given value of parameter z, possibly using minimize_scalar. Then feed min_of_f to a root-finding routine. How long these will take can be controlled by their tolerance parameters (xtol and others).
OP edit:
I wanted to give credit for this as a correct answer, but still provide more information.
I ended up using numpy.vectorize to vectorize without restructuring the problem. Although numpy.vectorize is not meant for increasing performance, the performance in my specific use case was a modest factor of two faster. Applying the same approach to the original problem in the question resulted in virtually no speed up with 100x100 vectors so YMMV.
Even though I wasn't able to vectorize this problem from a speed aspect for the reasons given in the above answer, being able to use plain vector syntax instead of nested for loops all over my code was useful.
I want to solve a high amount of bilinear ODE systems in python. The derivative is this:
def x_(x, t, growth, connections):
return x * growth + np.dot(connections, x) * x
I am not interested in very accurate results but in the qualitative behavior, i.e. whether a component goes to zero or not.
Because I have to solve such a big quantity of high-deminsional systems, I want to use a step size as big as possible.
Due to big step sizes it can happen that the ODE goes in one component below zero. This should not be possible since (because of the structure of the particular ODE) each component is bounded by zero. Hence - to prevent wrong results - I would like to set each component manually to zero once it is below.
Furtherly, in the systems that I want to solve it can happen that solutions blow up. I want to prevent this by setting an upper bound as well, i.e. if a value exceeds the bound it is set back to the value of the bound.
I hope I can make my goal understandable giving you the following pseudo-code of what I want to do:
for t in range(0, tEnd, dt):
$ compute x(t) using x(t-dt) $
x(t) = np.minimum(np.maximum(x(t), 0), upperBound)
I implemented this using a Runge-Kutta algorithm. Everything works fine. Just the performance is bad. Therefore, I would prefer using a pre-implemented method like scipy.integrate.odeint.
Thereby, I have no idea on how to set such bounds. An option that I tried was to manipulate the ODE that way, that the derivative becomes 0 once x is above the bound, and (positive) one once x is below 0. In addition, to prevent too high jumps within one timestep, I also bounded the derivative:
def x_(x, t, growth, connections, bound):
return (x > 0) * np.minimum((x < bound) * \
( x * growth + np.dot(connections, x) * x ), bound) + (x < 0)
Though this solution (especially for the zero-bound) is very ugly it would be sufficient if it worked. Unfortunately, it does not work. Using odeint
x = scipy.integrate.odeint(x_, x0, timesteps, param)
I get very often one of these two errors:
Repeated convergence failures (perhaps bad Jacobian or tolerances).
Excess work done on this call (perhaps wrong Dfun type).
They may be due to the discontinuities of my manipulated ODE. There are plenty of threads about these error messages on the internet but they did not help me. E.g. increasing the amount of allowed steps did neither prevent this issue nor is it a good solution for me since I need to use big step sizes. Furtherly, passing the Jacobian did not help either.
Having a look onto the solutions one can see that two types of strange behavior happen when the errors occure:
The solution blows in one single time-step up to +-1e250 (that should be impossible since dx/dt is bounded).
It first reaches the bound but goes down again (that should be impossible because x is at the bound and therefore x_ is 0).
I would appreciate all hints on how to solve the issue - no matter whether it is help on
how to prevent the errors in odeint
how to manipulate the ODE properly or on
how to write a very fast ODE solver where I can directly implement my needs.
I thank you in advance!
Edit
I was asked for a minimal example:
import numpy as np
import random as rd
rd.seed()
import scipy.integrate
def simulate(simParam, dim = 20, connectivity = .8, conRange = 1, threshold = 1E-3,
constGrowing=None):
"""
Creates the random system matrix and starts a simulation
"""
x0 = np.zeros(dim, dtype='float') + 1
connections = np.zeros(shape=(dim, dim), dtype='float')
growth = np.zeros(dim, dtype='float') +
(constGrowing if not constGrowing == None else 0)
for i in range(dim):
for j in range(dim):
if i != j:
connections[i][j] = rd.uniform(-conRange, conRange)
tend, step = simParam
return RK4NumPy(x_, (growth, connections), x0, 0, tend, step)
def x_(x, t, growth, connections, bound):
"""
Derivative of the ODE
"""
return (x > 0) * np.minimum((x < bound) *
(x * growth + np.dot(connections, x) * x), bound) + (x < 0)
def RK4NumPy(x_, param, x0, t0, tend, step, maxV = 1.0E2, silent=True):
"""
solving method
"""
param = param + (maxV,)
timesteps = np.arange(t0 + step, tend, step)
return scipy.integrate.odeint(x_, x0, timesteps, param)
simulate((300, 0.5))
To see the solution one would have to plot x. With the given parameters I get very often the above mentioned error
Excess work done on this call (perhaps wrong Dfun type).
Run with full_output = 1 to get quantitative information.
I have never used python but Mathematica can't handle the equation I am trying to solve. I am trying to solve for the variable "a" of the following equations where s, c, mu, and delta t are known parameters.
I tried doing NSolve, Solve, etc in Mathematica but it has been running for an hour with no luck. Since I am not familiar with Python, is there a way I can use Python to solve this equation for a?
You're not going to find an analytic solution to these equations because they're transcendental, containing a both inside and outside of a trigonometric function.
I think the trouble you're having with numerical solutions is that the range of acceptable values for a is constrained by the arcsin. Since arcsin is only defined for arguments between -1 and 1 (assuming you want a to be real), your formulas for alpha and beta require that a > s/2 and a > (s-c)/2.
In Python, you can find a zero of your third equation (rewritten in the form f(a) = 0) using the brentq function:
import numpy as np
from scipy.optimize import brentq
s = 10014.6
c = 6339.06
mu = 398600.0
dt = 780.0
def f(a):
alpha = 2*np.arcsin(np.sqrt(s/(2*a)))
beta = 2*np.arcsin(np.sqrt((s-c)/(2*a)))
return alpha - beta - (np.sin(alpha)-np.sin(beta)) - np.sqrt(mu/a**3)*dt
a0 = max(s/2, (s-c)/2)
a = brentq(f, a0, 10*a0)
Edit:
To clarify the way brentq(f,a,b) works is that it searches for a zero of f on an interval [a,b]. Here, we know that a is at least max(s/2, (s-c)/2). I just guessed that 10 times that was a plausible upper bound, and that worked for the given parameters. More generally, you need to make sure that f changes sign between a and b. You can read more about how the function works in the SciPy docs.
I think its worth examining the behaviour of the function before atempting to solve it. Without doing that you dont know if there is a unique solution, many solutions, or no solution. (The biggest problem is many solutions, where numerical methods may not give you the solution you require/expect - and if you blindly use it "bad things" might happen). You examine the behaviour nicely using scipy and ipython. This is an example notebook that does that
# -*- coding: utf-8 -*-
# <nbformat>3.0</nbformat>
# <codecell>
s = 10014.6
c = 6339.06
mu = 398600.0
dt = 780.0
# <codecell>
def sin_alpha_2(x):
return numpy.sqrt(s/(2*x))
def sin_beta_2(x):
return numpy.sqrt((s-c)/(2*x))
def alpha(x):
return 2*numpy.arcsin( numpy.clip(sin_alpha_2(x),-0.99,0.99) )
def beta(x):
return 2*numpy.arcsin( numpy.clip(sin_beta_2(x),-0.99,0.99) )
# <codecell>
def fn(x):
return alpha(x)-beta(x)-numpy.sin(alpha(x))+numpy.sin(beta(x)) - dt * numpy.sqrt( mu / numpy.power(x,3) )
# <codecell>
xx = numpy.arange(1,20000)
pylab.plot(xx, numpy.clip(fn(xx),-2,2) )
# <codecell>
xx=numpy.arange(4000,10000)
pylab.plot(xx,fn(xx))
# <codecell>
xx=numpy.arange(8000,9000)
pylab.plot(xx,fn(xx))
This shows that we expect to find a solution with a between 8000 and 9000.
The odd kink in the curve at about 5000 and earlier solution at about 4000 is due to
the clipping required to make arcsin behave. Really the equation does not make sense below about a=5000. (exact value is the a0 given in Rays solution). This then gives a nice range that can be used with the techniques in Rays solution.