Is the handling of the units broken or what am I missing?
load(ezunits);
σ_N: 10000`N/(50`mm*10`mm);
newts: 123`kg*m/s^3; newts `` N; newts + 321 `kg*m/s^2;
produces not what one would have hoped for:
(%i1) load(ezunits);
(%o1) "C:/maxima-5.43.2/share/maxima/5.43.2/share/ezunits/ezunits.mac"
(%i2) σ_N: 10000`N/(50`mm*10`mm);
(σ_N) 10000 ` (N/500 ` 1/mm^2)
(%i5) newts: 123`kg*m/s^3; newts `` N; newts + 321 `kg*m/s^2;
(newts) 123 ` (kg*m)/s^3
(%o4) 123/s ` N
(%o5) 321 ` (kg*m)/s^2+123 ` (kg*m)/s^3
Should be:
σ_N= 20 N/mm^2
newts= 123 N/s
For the first part, you have to use parentheses to indicate the grouping you want. When you write a ` b/c, it is interpreted as a ` (b/c), but in this case you want (a ` b)/c. (Grouping works that way because it's assumed that stuff like x ` m/s is more common than (x ` m)/s.)
(%i2) σ_N: (10000`N)/(50`mm*10`mm);
N
(%o2) 20 ` ---
2
mm
Just for fun, let's check the dimensions of this quantity. I guess it should be force/area.
(%i3) dimensions (%);
mass
(%o3) ------------
2
length time
(%i4) dimensions (N);
length mass
(%o4) -----------
2
time
(%i5) dimensions (mm);
(%o5) length
Looks right to me.
For the second part, I don't understand what you're trying to so. The variable newts has units equivalent to N/s, so I don't understand why you're trying to convert it to N, and I don't understand why you're trying to add N/s to N. Anyway here's what I can make of it.
(%i6) newts: 123`kg*m/s^3;
kg m
(%o6) 123 ` ----
3
s
(%i7) newts `` N/s;
N
(%o7) 123 ` -
s
When quantities with different dimensions are added, ezunits just lets it stand; it doesn't produce an error or anything.
(%i8) newts + 321 ` kg*m/s^2;
kg m kg m
(%o8) 321 ` ---- + 123 ` ----
2 3
s s
The motivation for that is that it allows for stuff like 3`sheep + 2`horse or x`hour + y`dollar-- the conversion rate can be determined after the fact. In general, allowing for expressions to be reinterpreted after the fact is, I believe, the mathematical attitude.
Related
I have been given matrices filled with alphanumerical values excluding lower case letters like so:
XX11X1X
XX88X8X
Y000YYY
ZZZZ789
ABABABC
and have been tasked with counting the repetitions in each row and then tallying up a score depending on the ranking of the character being repeated. I used {⍺ (≢⍵)}⌸¨ ↓ m to help me. For the example above I would get something like this:
X 4 X 4 Y 4 Z 4 A 3
1 3 8 3 0 3 7 1 B 3
8 1 C 1
9 1
This is great but now I need to do a function that would be able to multiply the numbers with each letter. I can access the first matrix with ⊃ but then I am completely lost on how to access the other ones. I can simply write ⊃w[2] and ⊃w[3] and so forth but I need a way to change every matrix at the same time in one function. For this example, the array of the ranking is as follow: ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA9876543210 so for the first array XX11X1X
which corresponds to:
X 4
1 3
So the X is 3rd in the array so it corresponds to a 3 and 1 is 35th so it's a 35. The final scoring would be something like (3×104)+(35×103). My biggest problem is not necessarily the scoring part but being able to access each matrix individually in one function. So for this nested array:
X 4 X 4 Y 4 Z 4 A 3
1 3 8 3 0 3 7 1 B 3
8 1 C 1
9 1
if I do arr[1] it gives me the scalar
X 4
1 3
and ⍴ arr[1] gives me nothing confirming it so I can do ⊃arr[1] to get the matrix itself and have access to each column individually. This is where I'm stuck. I'm trying to write a function to be able to do the math for each matrix and then saving those results to an array. I can easily do the math for the first matrix but I can't do it for all of them. I might have made a mistake by making using {⍺ (≢⍵)}⌸¨ ↓ m to get those matrices. Thanks.
Using your example arrangement:
⎕ ← arranged ← ⌽ ⎕D , ⎕A
ZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA9876543210
So now, we can get the index values:
1 ⌷ m
XX11X1X
∪ 1 ⌷ m
X1
arranged ⍳ ∪ 1 ⌷ m
3 35
While you could compute the intermediary step first, it is much simpler to include most of the final formula in in Key's operand:
{ ( arranged ⍳ ⍺ ) × 10 * ≢⍵ }⌸¨ ↓m
┌───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬─────────────────┬───────────────┐
│30000 35000│30000 28000│20000 36000│10000 290 280 270│26000 25000 240│
└───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴─────────────────┴───────────────┘
Now we just need to sum each:
+/¨ { ( arranged ⍳ ⍺ ) × 10 * ≢⍵ }⌸¨ ↓m
65000 58000 56000 10840 51240
In fact, we can combine the summation with the application of Key to avoid a double loop:
{ +/ { ( arranged ⍳ ⍺ ) × 10 * ≢⍵ }⌸ ⍵}¨ ↓m
65000 58000 56000 10840 51240
For completeness, here is a way to use the intermediary result. Let's start by working on just the first matrix (you can get the second one with 2⊃ instead of ⊃ ― for details, see Problems when trying to use arrays in APL. What have I missed?):
⊃{⍺ (≢⍵)}⌸¨ ↓m
X 4
1 3
We can insert a function between the left column elements and the right column elements with reduction:
{⍺ 'foo' ⍵}/ ⊃{⍺ (≢⍵)}⌸¨ ↓m
┌─────────┬─────────┐
│┌─┬───┬─┐│┌─┬───┬─┐│
││X│foo│4│││1│foo│3││
│└─┴───┴─┘│└─┴───┴─┘│
└─────────┴─────────┘
So now we simply have to modify the placeholder function with one that looks up the left argument in the arranged items, and multiplies by ten to the power of the right argument:
{ ( arranged ⍳ ⍺ ) × 10 * ⍵ }/ ⊃{⍺ (≢⍵)}⌸¨ ↓m
30000 35000
Instead of applying this to only the first matrix, we apply it to each matrix:
{ ( arranged ⍳ ⍺ ) × 10 * ⍵ }/¨ {⍺ (≢⍵)}⌸¨ ↓m
┌───────────┬───────────┬───────────┬─────────────────┬───────────────┐
│30000 35000│30000 28000│20000 36000│10000 290 280 270│26000 25000 240│
└───────────┴───────────┴───────────┴─────────────────┴───────────────┘
Now we just need to sum each:
+/¨ { ( arranged ⍳ ⍺ ) × 10 * ⍵ }/¨ {⍺ (≢⍵)}⌸¨ ↓m
65000 58000 56000 10840 51240
However, this is a much more circuitous approach, and is only provided here for reference.
I've got hiking distance data from a start point in column A and a column with a yes/no condition (let's say a "Y" denotes a campsite, for example).
What I'm trying to achieve is to calculate the distance between each distance marker in column A that has the condition "Y" in column B. (Desired output is column C.)
A B C
--------------
0 Y
12
26 Y 26 (26 - 0 = 26)
57
124 Y 98 (124 - 26 = 98)
137
152 Y 28 (152 - 124 = 28)
169
. . .
. . .
. . .
I can pull out the distance from column A with a simple IF statement, but that doesn't get me anywhere, of course.
I've searched the Internet extensively and there are a ton of threads out there about finding the last value or last non-empty value in a column.
So I've tried to use INDEX, FILTER, and LOOKUP in all sorts of combinations, but sadly nothing produces the result I'm looking for.
The tricky part, I guess, is to find the last value with a Y above the "current" Y (if that makes any sense).
In C2 try
=ArrayFormula(if(B2:B="y", A2:A-iferror(vlookup(row(A2:A)-1, filter({row(A2:A), A2:A}, len(B2:B)),2)),))
and see if that works?
I am trying to compare if there are differences in the number of obtained seeds in five different populations with different applied treatments, and having maternal plant and paternal plant as random effects. First I tried to fit a glmer model.
dat <-dat [,c(12,7,6,13,8,11)]
dat$parents<-factor(paste(dat$mother,dat$father,sep="_"))
compareTreat <- function(d)
{
d$treatment <-factor(d$treatment)
print (tapply(d$pop,list(d$pop,d$treatment),length))
print(summary(fit<-glmer(seed_no~treatment+(1|pop/mother)+
(1|pop/father),data=d,family="poisson")))
}
Then, I compared two treatments in two populations (pop 64 and pop 121, in that case). The other populations do not have this particular treatments, so I get NA values for those.
compareTreat(subset(dat,treatment%in%c("IE 5x","IE 7x")&pop%in%c(64,121)))
This is the output:
IE 5x IE 7x
10 NA NA
45 NA NA
64 31 27
121 33 28
144 NA NA
Generalized linear mixed model fit by maximum likelihood (Laplace
Approximation) [glmerMod]
Family: poisson ( log )
Formula: seed_no ~ treatment + (1 | pop/mother) + (1 | pop/father)
Data: d
AIC BIC logLik deviance df.resid
592.5 609.2 -290.2 580.5 113
Scaled residuals:
Min 1Q Median 3Q Max
-1.8950 -0.8038 -0.2178 0.4440 1.7991
Random effects:
Groups Name Variance Std.Dev.
father.pop (Intercept) 3.566e-01 5.971e-01
mother.pop (Intercept) 9.456e-01 9.724e-01
pop (Intercept) 1.083e-10 1.041e-05
pop.1 (Intercept) 1.017e-10 1.008e-05
Number of obs: 119, groups: father:pop, 81; mother:pop, 24; pop, 2
Fixed effects:
Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
(Intercept) 0.74664 0.24916 2.997 0.00273 **
treatmentIE 7x -0.05789 0.17894 -0.324 0.74629
---
Signif. codes: 0 ‘***’ 0.001 ‘**’ 0.01 ‘*’ 0.05 ‘.’ 0.1 ‘ ’ 1
Correlation of Fixed Effects:
(Intr)
tretmntIE7x -0.364
It seems there are no differences between treatments. But as there are many zeros in the data, a zero-inflated model would be worthy to try. I tried with glmmabmd, and I wrote the script like this:
compareTreat<-function(d)
{
d$treatment<-factor(d$treatment)
print(tapply(d$pop,list(d$pop,d$treatment), length))
print(summary(fit_zip<-glmmadmb(seed_no~treatment + (1|pop/mother)+
(1|pop/father),data=d,family="poisson", zeroInflation=TRUE)))
}
Then I compared again the treatments. Here I have not changed the code.
compareTreat(subset(dat,treatment%in%c("IE 5x","IE 7x")&pop%in%c(64,121)))
But in that case, the output is
IE 5x IE 7x
10 NA NA
45 NA NA
64 31 27
121 33 28
144 NA NA
Error in pop:father : NA/NaN argument
In addition: Warning messages:
1: In pop:father :
numerical expression has 119 elements: only the first used
2: In pop:father :
numerical expression has 119 elements: only the first used
3: In eval(parse(text = x), data) : NAs introduced by coercion
Called from: eval(parse(text = x), data)
I tried to change everything I came up with, but I still don't know where the problem is.
If I remove the (1|pop/father) from the glmmadmb script, the model runs, but it feels not correct. I wonder if the mistake is in the loop prior to the glmmadmb but it worked OK in the glmer model, or if it is in the comparison itself after the model. I tried as well to remove NAs with na.omit in case that was an issue, but it did not make a difference. Why does the script stop and does not continue running?
I am a student beginner with RStudio, my version is 3.4.2, called Short Summer. If someone with experience could point me in the right direction I would be very grateful!
H.
This may be super simple but I cannot find a way to get Maxima to tell me that c is now 8, not 3? Can anyone help?
(%i1) a:1;
(%o1) 1
(%i2) b:2;
(%o2) 2
(%i3) c:a+b;
(%o3) 3
(%i4) ''c;
(%o4) 3
(%i5) a:6;
(%o5) 6
(%i6) ''c;
(%o6) 3
Many thanks
Tom
The easiest way is to define include a prevent evaluation (') operator in the definition ofc. For example:
(%i1) c : '(a+b);
(%o1) b + a
(%i2) a:1;
(%o2) 1
(%i3) b:2;
(%o3) 2
(%i4) ''c;
(%o4) 3
(%i5) a:6;
(%o5) 6
(%i6) ''c;
(%o6) 8
Note that you can also post-fix the values of a and b:
(%i7) c, a:11, b:5;
(%o7) 16
I have a filter/kernel like
| 1 1 1|
H = 1/m | 1 n 1|
| 1 1 1|
I want to know what is the relationship between m and n in this filter and how this relationship
effect the image using convolution.
There doesn't have to be any relationship between n and m, but if you want the convolution to be normalized, you need the sum of the kernel to be 1. In that case
m = 8 + n
The wiki page on kernels also explains that
Normalization ensures that the pixel values in the output image are of
the same relative magnitude as those in the input image.
Otherwise if m < 8 + n they will be brighter, or if m > 8 + n they will be dimmer.
NOTE
As pointed out by BЈовић, changing n changes the action of the filter significantly (see comments on this question).