I would like to make matrix calculator, but I struggle a little bit, how to make an input of the program. I have commands that user can use in calculator. Some takes 1 argument, 2 arguments or 3 arguments. I was inspired by program on this website http://www.ivank.net/blogspot/matrix_pascal/matrices.pas
But I don't really understand, how the input is made. Program from the website use parse, split procedures, but I don't know, how does it work. Does it exists some website, where it is good explained (Parse in Pascal)? I would like to really understand it.
This is, how it should looks like:
command: sum X Y
command: multiply X
command: transpose X
In the sample which inspired you, all the calculation is realized by the 'procedure parse(command:String);'.
The first step consists to extract the command and all parameters by:
com := Split(command, ' ');
In your case, you will obtain for 'command: sum X Y':
Length(com) = 3
com[0] = 'sum'; com[1] = 'X'; com[2] = 'Y';
But, be carefull, the 'X' and 'Y' parameters shall not have characters between numbers.
Related
I wonder if there is any way to make functions defined within the main function be local, in a similar way to local variables. For example, in this function that calculates the gradient of a scalar function,
grad(var,f) := block([aux],
aux : [gradient, DfDx[i]],
gradient : [],
DfDx[i] := diff(f(x_1,x_2,x_3),var[i],1),
for i in [1,2,3] do (
gradient : append(gradient, [DfDx[i]])
),
return(gradient)
)$
The variable gradient that has been defined inside the main function grad(var,f) has no effect outside the main function, as it is inside the aux list. However, I have observed that the function DfDx, despite being inside the aux list, does have an effect outside the main function.
Is there any way to make the sub-functions defined inside the main function to be local only, in a similar way to what can be made with local variables? (I know that one can kill them once they have been used, but perhaps there is a more elegant way)
To address the problem you are needing to solve here, another way to compute the gradient is to say
grad(var, e) := makelist(diff(e, var1), var1, var);
and then you can say for example
grad([x, y, z], sin(x)*y/z);
to get
cos(x) y sin(x) sin(x) y
[--------, ------, - --------]
z z 2
z
(There isn't a built-in gradient function; this is an oversight.)
About local functions, bear in mind that all function definitions are global. However you can approximate a local function definition via local, which saves and restores all properties of a symbol. Since the function definition is a property, local has the effect of temporarily wiping out an existing function definition and later restoring it. In between you can create a temporary function definition. E.g.
foo(x) := 2*x;
bar(y) := block(local(foo), foo(x) := x - 1, foo(y));
bar(100); /* output is 99 */
foo(100); /* output is 200 */
However, I don't this you need to use local -- just makelist plus diff is enough to compute the gradient.
There is more to say about Maxima's scope rules, named and unnamed functions, etc. I'll try to come back to this question tomorrow.
To compute the gradient, my advice is to call makelist and diff as shown in my first answer. Let me take this opportunity to address some related topics.
I'll paste the definition of grad shown in the problem statement and use that to make some comments.
grad(var,f) := block([aux],
aux : [gradient, DfDx[i]],
gradient : [],
DfDx[i] := diff(f(x_1,x_2,x_3),var[i],1),
for i in [1,2,3] do (
gradient : append(gradient, [DfDx[i]])
),
return(gradient)
)$
(1) Maxima works mostly with expressions as opposed to functions. That's not causing a problem here, I just want to make it clear. E.g. in general one has to say diff(f(x), x) when f is a function, instead of diff(f, x), likewise integrate(f(x), ...) instead of integrate(f, ...).
(2) When gradient and Dfdx are to be the local variables, you have to name them in the list of variables for block. E.g. block([gradient, Dfdx], ...) -- Maxima won't understand block([aux], aux: ...).
(3) Note that a function defined with square brackets instead of parentheses, e.g. f[x] := ... instead of f(x) := ..., is a so-called array function in Maxima. An array function is a memoizing function, i.e. if f[x] is called two or more times, the return value is only computed once, and then returned every time thereafter. Sometimes that's a useful optimization when the domain of the function comprises a finite set.
(4) Bear in mind that x_1, x_2, x_3, are distinct symbols, not related to each other, and not related to x[1], x[2], x[3], even if they are displayed the same. My advice is to work with subscripted symbols x[i] when i is a variable.
(5) About building up return values, try to arrange to compute the whole thing at one go, instead of growing the result incrementally. In this case, makelist is preferable to for plus append.
(6) The return function in Maxima acts differently than in other programming languages; it's a little hard to explain. A function returns the value of the last expression which was evaluated, so if gradient is that last expression, you can just write grad(var, f) := block(..., gradient).
Hope this helps, I know it's obscure and complex. The Maxima programming language was not designed before being implemented, and some of the decisions are clearly questionable at the long interval of more than 50 years (!) later. That's okay, they were figuring it out as they went along. There was not a body of established results which could provide a point of reference; the original authors were contributing to what's considered common knowledge today.
A program to run a Schmid-Leiman transformation using SPSS's Matrix language was published in 2005 by Woolf & Preising in Behavior Research Methods volume 37, pages 48 to 58). It is probably not important for you to know what a Schmid-Leiman transformation is, but I'll explain in comments if you feel it is necessary.
In modifying the program for my own data, I'm getting an error I can't figure out:
Error # 12302 in column 12. Text: ,
Syntax error.
Execution of this command stops.
Error in RIGHT HAND SIDE of COMPUTE command.
The MATRIX statement skipped.
Here is the beginning of the code. The error is showing as coming in Line 6:
* Encoding: UTF-8.
* Schmid-Leiman Solution for 2 level higher-order Factor analysis.
Matrix.
* ENTER YOUR SPECIFICATIONS HERE.
* Enter first-order pattern matrix.
Compute F1={.461, .253, -.058, -.069;
.241, .600, .143, .033;
.582, .047, -.077, -.125;
.327, .297, -.120, -.166;
.176, .448, -.240, -.099;
.680, .069, -.036, -.138;
.415, .228, -.091, -.153;
.
.
.
.390, .205, .002, -.098;
.164, .369, -.170, -.047
}.
As shown above, the text generating the error is shown as a comma (,), but the actual text (following the COMPUTE statement) in column 12 is an open bracket ({). So I have no idea what is going on. Can someone help?
For reference, the original code as proposed by Woolf & Preising (2005) is found here;
The Woolf & Preising article is found here
PS: The sample program given in the link above does run on my copy of SPSS. Here's the beginning of that code:
* Schmid-Leiman Solution for 2 level higher-order Factor analysis.
Matrix.
* ENTER YOUR SPECIFICATIONS HERE.
* Enter first-order pattern matrix.
Compute F1={0.099, 0.5647, -0.1521;
0.0124, 0.9419, -0.1535;
-0.1501, 0.6177, 0.4218;
0.7441, -0.0882, 0.1425;
0.6241, 0.2793, -0.1137;
0.8693, -0.0331, 0.0289;
-0.0154, -0.2706, 0.6262;
-0.0914, 0.0995, 0.7216;
0.1502, 0.0835, 0.398}.
I want to use Maxima to get the prime factorization of a random positive integer, e.g. 12=2^2*3^1.
What I have tried so far:
a:random(20);
aa:abs(a);
fa:ifactors(aa);
ka:length(fa);
ta:1;
pfza: for i:1 while i<=ka do ta:ta*(fa[i][1])^(fa[i][2]);
ta;
This will be implemented in STACK for Moodle as part of a online exercise for students, so the exact implementation will be a little bit different from this, but I broke it down to these 7 lines.
I generate a random number a, make sure that it is a positive integer by using aa=|a|+1 and want to use the ifactors command to get the prime factors of aa. ka tells me the number of pairwise distinct prime factors which I then use for the while loop in pfza. If I let this piece of code run, it returns everything fine, execpt for simplifying ta, that is I don't get ta as a product of primes with some exponents but rather just ta=aa.
I then tried to turn off the simplifier, manually simplifying everything else that I need:
simp:false$
a:random(20);
aa:ev(abs(a),simp);
fa:ifactors(aa);
ka:ev(length(fa),simp);
ta:1;
pfza: for i:1 while i<=ka do ta:ta*(fa[i][1])^(fa[i][2]);
ta;
This however does not compile; I assume the problem is somewhere in the line for pfza, but I don't know why.
Any input on how to fix this? Or another method of getting the factorizing in a non-simplified form?
(1) The for-loop fails because adding 1 to i requires 1 + 1 to be simplified to 2, but simplification is disabled. Here's a way to make the loop work without requiring arithmetic.
(%i10) for f in fa do ta:ta*(f[1]^f[2]);
(%o10) done
(%i11) ta;
2 2 1
(%o11) ((1 2 ) 2 ) 3
Hmm, that's strange, again because of the lack of simplification. How about this:
(%i12) apply ("*", map (lambda ([f], f[1]^f[2]), fa));
2 1
(%o12) 2 3
In general I think it's better to avoid explicit indexing anyway.
(2) But maybe you don't need that at all. factor returns an unsimplified expression of the kind you are trying to construct.
(%i13) simp:true;
(%o13) true
(%i14) factor(12);
2
(%o14) 2 3
I think it's conceptually inconsistent for factor to return an unsimplified, but anyway it seems to work here.
I am trying to calculate the energy of a photon in (wx)Maxima, using physical_constants and ezunits:
|lambda| : 800 * 10^-9 ` m;
Where | denotes Escape... which displays correctly as a greek lambda, but wxMaxima does not confirm the value as it does usually.
So next I try to use E = h*c/lambda
constvalue (%h * %c / |lambda|) `` J;
But again wxMaxima does not show any result.
Everything works fine if I use lambda spelled in full instead of a greek symbol...
Is the |greek| only good for text inputs?
It's fairly simple: lambda denotes the anonymous lambda function and that one can not be used as a symbol. Use %lambda instead.
A similar thing applies to phi: phi can be used as a symbol, but %phi is a constant with the value 1.61... (golden ratio).
Taking a derivative with respect to %phi instead of phi will for that reason always result in 0 ;-)
When I run this code (in a programming assignment for Coursera):
J = 1/m * [-y.*log(sigmoid((theta)'*X))-(1-y).*log(1-sigmoid((theta)'*X))]
where m = length(y), y is an m-dimensional vector, X is an m*2 matrix, and theta = 0.1, Octave outputs:
g =
[long (#rows)*2 matrix, each entry <1 but extremely close to 1]
g =
[another long (#rows)*2 matrix as before]
J =
[(#rows)*2 matrix with entries such as 3.4932e-002 and 7.8914e-005]
What is g? I never defined it, and it does not appear in my code, yet is outputted with some seemingly unrelated numbers? (I know that the function itself may have problems, but that is a separate issue from what I'm interested in here. I figured that if I know what g is, I might be able to troubleshoot better. If you have any comments on the function, please don't hesitate to point out what's wrong.)
Whenever you have a statement (inside a function or otherwise) which is not terminated with a semicolon, the output of that statement will display on the terminal.
Assuming that this is the only code you're running, then my guess is that inside your sigmoid function there is a statement of this kind:
g = dosomething() % note: not semicolon terminated!
resulting in terminal output during its execution.
The fact that g is reported twice in the terminal also makes sense, since you are calling the sigmoid function twice in that expression you just wrote.
Also, for the sake of clarity, please do not refer to your one-liner as a function, since that means something entirely different in the context of programming.