Encoding self-dependent relations in Z3 - z3

I was wondering if there is an easy way to represented the following dependencies in Z3:
x = 0
y = x + 1
y = y + 10
Thanks!


y = y + 10 is always unsatisfiable. I'm guessing you intend these to model a series of assignments, as in an imperative programming language? In that case, you should convert it to static single assignment form (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Static_single_assignment_form). That is, model it as follows:
x0 = 1
y0 = x0 + 1
y1 = y0 + 10

Related

How does Roblox's math.noise() deal with negative inputs?

While messing around with noise outside of Roblox, I realized Perlin/Simplex Noise does not like negative inputs. Remembering Roblox has a noise function, I tried there, and found out negative numbers do work nicely for Roblox's math.noise(). Does anybody know how they made this work, or how to get negative numbers to work for Perlin/Simplex noise in general?
The Simplex Noise I am using (copied from here but changed to have the bitwise and operation):
local function bit_and(a, b) --bitwise and operation
local p, c = 1, 0
while a > 0 and b > 0 do
local ra, rb = a%2, b%2
if (ra + rb) > 1 then
c = c + p
end
a = (a - ra) / 2
b = (b - rb) / 2
p = p * 2
end
return c
end
-- 2D simplex noise
local grad3 = {
{1,1,0},{-1,1,0},{1,-1,0},{-1,-1,0},
{1,0,1},{-1,0,1},{1,0,-1},{-1,0,-1},
{0,1,1},{0,-1,1},{0,1,-1},{0,-1,-1}
}
local p = {151,160,137,91,90,15,
131,13,201,95,96,53,194,233,7,225,140,36,103,30,69,142,8,99,37,240,21,10,23,
190, 6,148,247,120,234,75,0,26,197,62,94,252,219,203,117,35,11,32,57,177,33,
88,237,149,56,87,174,20,125,136,171,168, 68,175,74,165,71,134,139,48,27,166,
77,146,158,231,83,111,229,122,60,211,133,230,220,105,92,41,55,46,245,40,244,
102,143,54, 65,25,63,161, 1,216,80,73,209,76,132,187,208, 89,18,169,200,196,
135,130,116,188,159,86,164,100,109,198,173,186, 3,64,52,217,226,250,124,123,
5,202,38,147,118,126,255,82,85,212,207,206,59,227,47,16,58,17,182,189,28,42,
223,183,170,213,119,248,152, 2,44,154,163, 70,221,153,101,155,167, 43,172,9,
129,22,39,253, 19,98,108,110,79,113,224,232,178,185, 112,104,218,246,97,228,
251,34,242,193,238,210,144,12,191,179,162,241, 81,51,145,235,249,14,239,107,
49,192,214, 31,181,199,106,157,184, 84,204,176,115,121,50,45,127, 4,150,254,
138,236,205,93,222,114,67,29,24,72,243,141,128,195,78,66,215,61,156,180}
local perm = {}
for i=0,511 do
perm[i+1] = p[bit_and(i, 255) + 1]
end
local function dot(g, ...)
local v = {...}
local sum = 0
for i=1,#v do
sum = sum + v[i] * g[i]
end
return sum
end
local noise = {}
function noise.produce(xin, yin)
local n0, n1, n2 -- Noise contributions from the three corners
-- Skew the input space to determine which simplex cell we're in
local F2 = 0.5*(math.sqrt(3.0)-1.0)
local s = (xin+yin)*F2; -- Hairy factor for 2D
local i = math.floor(xin+s)
local j = math.floor(yin+s)
local G2 = (3.0-math.sqrt(3.0))/6.0
local t = (i+j)*G2
local X0 = i-t -- Unskew the cell origin back to (x,y) space
local Y0 = j-t
local x0 = xin-X0 -- The x,y distances from the cell origin
local y0 = yin-Y0
-- For the 2D case, the simplex shape is an equilateral triangle.
-- Determine which simplex we are in.
local i1, j1 -- Offsets for second (middle) corner of simplex in (i,j) coords
if x0 > y0 then
i1 = 1
j1 = 0 -- lower triangle, XY order: (0,0)->(1,0)->(1,1)
else
i1 = 0
j1 = 1
end-- upper triangle, YX order: (0,0)->(0,1)->(1,1)
-- A step of (1,0) in (i,j) means a step of (1-c,-c) in (x,y), and
-- a step of (0,1) in (i,j) means a step of (-c,1-c) in (x,y), where
-- c = (3-sqrt(3))/6
local x1 = x0 - i1 + G2 -- Offsets for middle corner in (x,y) unskewed coords
local y1 = y0 - j1 + G2
local x2 = x0 - 1 + 2 * G2 -- Offsets for last corner in (x,y) unskewed coords
local y2 = y0 - 1 + 2 * G2
-- Work out the hashed gradient indices of the three simplex corners
local ii = bit_and(i, 255)
local jj = bit_and(j, 255)
local gi0 = perm[ii + perm[jj+1]+1] % 12
local gi1 = perm[ii + i1 + perm[jj + j1+1]+1] % 12
local gi2 = perm[ii + 1 + perm[jj + 1+1]+1] % 12
-- Calculate the contribution from the three corners
local t0 = 0.5 - x0 * x0 - y0 * y0
if t0 < 0 then
n0 = 0.0
else
t0 = t0 * t0
n0 = t0 * t0 * dot(grad3[gi0+1], x0, y0) -- (x,y) of grad3 used for 2D gradient
end
local t1 = 0.5 - x1 * x1 - y1 * y1
if t1 < 0 then
n1 = 0.0
else
t1 = t1 * t1
n1 = t1 * t1 * dot(grad3[gi1+1], x1, y1)
end
local t2 = 0.5 - x2 * x2 - y2 * y2
if t2 < 0 then
n2 = 0.0
else
t2 = t2 * t2
n2 = t2 * t2 * dot(grad3[gi2+1], x2, y2)
end
-- Add contributions from each corner to get the final noise value.
-- The result is scaled to return values in the interval [-1,1].
return 70.0 * (n0 + n1 + n2)
end
return noise

The Lua programming language version that Roblox uses, LuaU (or Luau), is actually open-source since November of 2021. You can find it here. The math library can be found in this file called lmathlib.cpp and it contains the math.noise function along with internal functions to calculate it, perlin (main function), grad, lerp, and fade. It's a quite complicated thing I can't explain myself, but I have converted it into Lua here.

What does the distance in machine learning signify?

In Neural networks, we regularly use the equation:
w1*x1 + w2*x2 + w3*x3 ...
We can interpret this as equation of a line with each x as a dimension. To make things more clearer, lets take an example of a simple perceptron network.
Imagine a single layer perceptron with 2 ip's/features (x1 & x2) and one output (y). (Sorry stackoverflow didn't allow me to post an additional image)
Let
R = w1*x1 + w2 * x2
y = 0 if R >= threshold
y = 1 if R < threshold
Scenario 1:
Threshold = 0
w1 = 2, w2 = -1
The line separating class 0 and 1 has the equation 2*x1 - x2 = 0
Suppose we get a test sample
P = (1,1)
R = 2*1 - 1 = 1 > 0
Sample P belongs to class 1
My questions is what is this R?
From the figure, its horizontal distance from the line.
Scenario 2:
Threshold = 0
w1 = 2, w2 = 1
The line separating class 0 and 1 has the equation 2*x1 + x2 = 0
P = (1,1)
R = 2*1 + 1 = 3 > 0
Sample P belongs to class 1
From the figure, its vertical distance from the line.
R is supposed to mean some form of distance from the classifying line. More the distance, more farther away from the line and we are more confident about the classification.
Just want to know what kind of distance from the line is R?

Recurrence relation - equal roots of characteristic equation

I have the following problem:
Solve the following recurrence relation, simplifying your final answer
using 'O' notation.
f(0)=3
f(1)=12
f(n)=6f(n-1)-9f(n-2)
We know this is a homogeneous 2nd order relation so we write the characteristic equation: a^2-6a+9=0 and the solutions are a1,2=3.
The problem is when I replace these values I get:
f(n)=c1*3^n+c2*3^n
and using the 2 initial relations I have:
f(0)=c1+c2=3
f(1)=3(c1+c2)=12
which gives me that there no values such that c1 and c2 such that these 2 relation are true.
Am I doing something wrong? Is the way it should be solved different when it comes to identical roots for the characteristic equation?

You can't solve it this way, because your matrix A is not diagonalizable.
However, here is what you get if you use Jordan's normal form instead:
f(n) = 3^{n-1}(3n + 9)
The Jordan matrix and the basis (with notation from wikipedia + Octave) is:
J := [3,1;0,3]
P := [3,4;1,1]
such that PJP^{-1} = A, where
A := [6,-9;1,0]
is your recurrence matrix. Furthermore, the Jordan matrix is almost as good as a diagonal matrix for computing powers:
J^n = 3^(n-1) * [3,n;0,3].
The recurrence is then:
[f(n+1); f(n)] = A^n [12,3] = PJ^nP^-1[12,3] = (<whatever>, 3^(n-1)*(3n+9)).
Here a quick numerical check (Scala, but you can take whatever you want, Octave or I whatever you like):
scala> def f(n: Int): Int = { if (n == 0) 3 else if (n == 1) 12 else (6 * f(n-1) - 9 * f(n-2)) }
f: (n: Int)Int
scala> for (i <- 0 until 20) println(f(i))
3
12
45
162
567
1944
6561
21870
72171
236196
767637
2480058
7971615
25509168
81310473
258280326
817887699
^
scala> def explicit(n: Int): Int = (Math.pow(3, n -1) * (3 * n + 9)).toInt
explicit: (n: Int)Int
scala> for (i <- 0 until 20) println(explicit(i))
3
12
45
162
567
1944
6561
21870
72171
236196
767637
2480058
7971615
25509168
81310473
258280326
817887699

How can I fix this issue with my Mandelbrot fractal generator?

I've been working on a project that renders a Mandelbrot fractal. For those of you who know, it is generated by iterating through the following function where c is the point on a complex plane:
function f(c, z) return z^2 + c end
Iterating through that function produces the following fractal (ignore the color):
When you change the function to this, (z raised to the third power)
function f(c, z) return z^3 + c end
the fractal should render like so (again, the color doesn't matter):
(source: uoguelph.ca)
However, when I raised z to the power of 3, I got an image extremely similar as to when you raise z to the power of 2. How can I make the fractal render correctly? This is the code where the iterations are done: (the variables real and imaginary simply scale the screen from -2 to 2)
--loop through each pixel, col = column, row = row
local real = (col - zoomCol) * 4 / width
local imaginary = (row - zoomRow) * 4 / width
local z, c, iter = 0, 0, 0
while math.sqrt(z^2 + c^2) <= 2 and iter < maxIter do
local zNew = z^2 - c^2 + real
c = 2*z*c + imaginary
z = zNew
iter = iter + 1
end

So I recently decided to remake a Mandelbrot fractal generator, and it was MUCH more successful than my attempt last time, as my programming skills have increased with practice.
I decided to generalize the mandelbrot function using recursion for anyone who wants it. So, for example, you can do f(z, c) z^2 + c or f(z, c) z^3 + c
Here it is for anyone that may need it:
function raise(r, i, cr, ci, pow)
if pow == 1 then
return r + cr, i + ci
end
return raise(r*r-i*i, 2*r*i, cr, ci, pow - 1)
end
and it's used like this:
r, i = raise(r, i, CONSTANT_REAL_PART, CONSTANT_IMAG_PART, POWER)

Gradient in continuous regression using a neural network

I'm trying to implement a regression NN that has 3 layers (1 input, 1 hidden and 1 output layer with a continuous result). As a basis I took a classification NN from coursera.org class, but changed the cost function and gradient calculation so as to fit a regression problem (and not a classification one):
My nnCostFunction now is:
function [J grad] = nnCostFunctionLinear(nn_params, ...
input_layer_size, ...
hidden_layer_size, ...
num_labels, ...
X, y, lambda)
Theta1 = reshape(nn_params(1:hidden_layer_size * (input_layer_size + 1)), ...
hidden_layer_size, (input_layer_size + 1));
Theta2 = reshape(nn_params((1 + (hidden_layer_size * (input_layer_size + 1))):end), ...
num_labels, (hidden_layer_size + 1));
m = size(X, 1);
a1 = X;
a1 = [ones(m, 1) a1];
a2 = a1 * Theta1';
a2 = [ones(m, 1) a2];
a3 = a2 * Theta2';
Y = y;
J = 1/(2*m)*sum(sum((a3 - Y).^2))
th1 = Theta1;
th1(:,1) = 0; %set bias = 0 in reg. formula
th2 = Theta2;
th2(:,1) = 0;
t1 = th1.^2;
t2 = th2.^2;
th = sum(sum(t1)) + sum(sum(t2));
th = lambda * th / (2*m);
J = J + th; %regularization
del_3 = a3 - Y;
t1 = del_3'*a2;
Theta2_grad = 2*(t1)/m + lambda*th2/m;
t1 = del_3 * Theta2;
del_2 = t1 .* a2;
del_2 = del_2(:,2:end);
t1 = del_2'*a1;
Theta1_grad = 2*(t1)/m + lambda*th1/m;
grad = [Theta1_grad(:) ; Theta2_grad(:)];
end
Then I use this func in fmincg algorithm, but in firsts iterations fmincg end it's work. I think my gradient is wrong, but I can't find the error.
Can anybody help?

If I understand correctly, your first block of code (shown below) -
m = size(X, 1);
a1 = X;
a1 = [ones(m, 1) a1];
a2 = a1 * Theta1';
a2 = [ones(m, 1) a2];
a3 = a2 * Theta2';
Y = y;
is to get the output a(3) at the output layer.
Ng's slides about NN has the below configuration to calculate a(3). It's different from what your code presents.
in the middle/output layer, you are not doing the activation function g, e.g., a sigmoid function.
In terms of the cost function J without regularization terms, Ng's slides has the below formula:
I don't understand why you can compute it using:
J = 1/(2*m)*sum(sum((a3 - Y).^2))
because you are not including the log function at all.

Mikhaill, I´ve been playing with a NN for continuous regression as well, and had a similar issues at some point. The best thing to do here would be to test gradient computation against a numerical calculation before running the model. If that´s not correct, fmincg won´t be able to train the model. (Btw, I discourage you of using numerical gradient as the time involved is much bigger).
Taking into account that you took this idea from Ng´s Coursera class, I´ll implement a possible solution for you to try using the same notation for Octave.
% Cost function without regularization.
J = 1/2/m^2*sum((a3-Y).^2);
% In case it´s needed, regularization term is added (i.e. for Training).
if (reg==true);
J=J+lambda/2/m*(sum(sum(Theta1(:,2:end).^2))+sum(sum(Theta2(:,2:end).^2)));
endif;
% Derivatives are computed for layer 2 and 3.
d3=(a3.-Y);
d2=d3*Theta2(:,2:end);
% Theta grad is computed without regularization.
Theta1_grad=(d2'*a1)./m;
Theta2_grad=(d3'*a2)./m;
% Regularization is added to grad computation.
Theta1_grad(:,2:end)=Theta1_grad(:,2:end)+(lambda/m).*Theta1(:,2:end);
Theta2_grad(:,2:end)=Theta2_grad(:,2:end)+(lambda/m).*Theta2(:,2:end);
% Unroll gradients.
grad = [Theta1_grad(:) ; Theta2_grad(:)];
Note that, since you have taken out all the sigmoid activation, the derivative calculation is quite simple and results in a simplification of the original code.
Next steps:
1. Check this code to understand if it makes sense to your problem.
2. Use gradient checking to test gradient calculation.
3. Finally, use fmincg and check you get different results.

Try to include sigmoid function to compute second layer (hidden layer) values and avoid sigmoid in calculating the target (output) value.
function [J grad] = nnCostFunction1(nnParams, ...
inputLayerSize, ...
hiddenLayerSize, ...
numLabels, ...
X, y, lambda)
Theta1 = reshape(nnParams(1:hiddenLayerSize * (inputLayerSize + 1)), ...
hiddenLayerSize, (inputLayerSize + 1));
Theta2 = reshape(nnParams((1 + (hiddenLayerSize * (inputLayerSize + 1))):end), ...
numLabels, (hiddenLayerSize + 1));
Theta1Grad = zeros(size(Theta1));
Theta2Grad = zeros(size(Theta2));
m = size(X,1);
a1 = [ones(m, 1) X]';
z2 = Theta1 * a1;
a2 = sigmoid(z2);
a2 = [ones(1, m); a2];
z3 = Theta2 * a2;
a3 = z3;
Y = y';
r1 = lambda / (2 * m) * sum(sum(Theta1(:, 2:end) .* Theta1(:, 2:end)));
r2 = lambda / (2 * m) * sum(sum(Theta2(:, 2:end) .* Theta2(:, 2:end)));
J = 1 / ( 2 * m ) * (a3 - Y) * (a3 - Y)' + r1 + r2;
delta3 = a3 - Y;
delta2 = (Theta2' * delta3) .* sigmoidGradient([ones(1, m); z2]);
delta2 = delta2(2:end, :);
Theta2Grad = 1 / m * (delta3 * a2');
Theta2Grad(:, 2:end) = Theta2Grad(:, 2:end) + lambda / m * Theta2(:, 2:end);
Theta1Grad = 1 / m * (delta2 * a1');
Theta1Grad(:, 2:end) = Theta1Grad(:, 2:end) + lambda / m * Theta1(:, 2:end);
grad = [Theta1Grad(:) ; Theta2Grad(:)];
end
Normalize the inputs before passing it in nnCostFunction.

In accordance with Week 5 Lecture Notes guideline for a Linear System NN you should make following changes in the initial code:
Remove num_lables or make it 1 (in reshape() as well)
No need to convert y into a logical matrix
For a2 - replace sigmoid() function to tanh()
In d2 calculation - replace sigmoidGradient(z2) with (1-tanh(z2).^2)
Remove sigmoid from output layer (a3 = z3)
Replace cost function in the unregularized portion to linear one: J = (1/(2*m))*sum((a3-y).^2)
Create predictLinear(): use predict() function as a basis, replace sigmoid with tanh() for the first layer hypothesis, remove second sigmoid for the second layer hypothesis, remove the line with max() function, use output of the hidden layer hypothesis as a prediction result
Verify your nnCostFunctionLinear() on the test case from the lecture note

Resources