I need to convert a math formula written in the Latex style to the function of a C/C++ code.
For example:
y = sin(x)^2 would become something like
double y = sin(x) * sin(x);
or
double y = pow(sin(x), 2);
where x is a variable defined somewhere before.
I mean that it should convert the latex formula to the C/C++ syntax. So that if there is a function y = G(x, y)^F(x) it doesn't matter what is G(x,y) and F(x),
it is a problem of the programmer to define it. It will just generate
double y = pow(G(x, y), F(x));
When the formula is too complicated it will take some time to make include it in the C/C++ formula. Is there any way to do this conversion?
Emacs' built-in calculator calc-mode can do this (and much more). Your examples can be converted like this:
Put the formula in some emacs buffer
$ y = sin(x)^2 $
With the cursor in the formula, activate calc-embedded mode
M-x calc-embedded
Switch the display language to C:
M-x calc-c-language
There you are:
$ y == pow(sin(x), 2) $
Note that it interprets the '=' sign in latex as an equality, which results in '==' for C. The latex equivalent to Cs assignment operator '=' would be '\gets'.
More on this topic on Turong's blog
I know the question is too old, but I'll just add a reply anyway as a think it might help someone else later. The question popped up a lot for me in my searches.
I'm working on a tool that does something similar, in a public git repo
You'll have to put some artificial limitations on your latex input, that's out of question.
Currently the tool I wrote only supports mul, div, add, sub, sqrt, pow, frac and sum as those are the only set of operations I need to handle, and the imposed limitations can be a bit loose by providing a preprocessor (see preproc.l for an [maybe not-so-good] example) that would clean away the raw latex input.
A mathematical equation, such as the ones in LaTeX, and a C expression are not interchangeable. The former states a relation between two terms, the latter defines an entity that can be evaluated, unambiguously yielding one value. a = b in C means 'take the value in variable b and store it in variable a', wheres in Math, it means 'in the current context, a and b are equal'. The first describes a computation process, the second describes a static fact. Consequently, the Math equation can be reversed: a = b is equivalent to b = a, but doing the same to the C equation yields something quite different.
To make matters worse, LaTeX formulae only contain the information needed to render the equations; often, this is not enough to capture their meaning.
Of course some LaTeX formulae, like your example, can be converted into C computations, but many others cannot, so any automated way of doing so would only make limited sense.
I'm not sure there is a simple answer, because mathematical formulaes (in LaTeX documents) are actually ambiguous, so to automate their translation to some code requires automating their understanding.
And the MathML standard has, IIRC, two forms representing formulaes (one for displaying, another for computing) and there is some reason for that.
Related
I have created a grammar to read a file of equations then created AST nodes for each rule.My question is how can I do simplification or substitute vales on the equations that the parser is able to read correctly. in which stage? before creating AST nodes or after?
Please provide me with ideas or tutorials to follow.
Thank you.
I'm assuming you equations are something like simple polynomials over real-value variables, like X^2+3*Y^2
You ask for two different solutions to two different problems that start with having an AST for at least one equation:
How to "substitute values" into the equation and compute the resulting value, e.g, for X==3 and Y=2, substitute into the AST for the formula above and compute 3^2+3*2^2 --> 21
How to do simplification: I assume you mean algebraic simplification.
The first problem of substituting values is fairly easy if yuo already have the AST. (If not, parse the equation to produce the AST first!) Then all you have to do is walk the AST, replacing every leaf node containing a variable name with the corresponding value, and then doing arithmetic on any parent nodes whose children now happen to be numbers; you repeat this until no more nodes can be arithmetically evaluated. Basically you wire simple arithmetic into a tree evaluation scheme.
Sometimes your evaluation will reduce the tree to a single value as in the example, and you can print the numeric result My SO answer shows how do that in detail. You can easily implement this yourself in a small project, even using JavaCC/JJTree appropriately adapted.
Sometimes the formula will end up in a state where no further arithmetic on it is possible, e.g., 1+x+y with x==0 and nothing known about y; then the result of such a subsitution/arithmetic evaluation process will be 1+y. Unfortunately, you will only have this as an AST... now you need to print out the resulting AST in order for the user to see the result. This is harder; see my SO answer on how to prettyprint a tree. This is considerably more work; if you restrict your tree to just polynomials over expressions, you can still do this in small project. JavaCC will help you with parsing, but provides zero help with prettyprinting.
The second problem is much harder, because you must not only accomplish variable substitution and arithmetic evaluation as above, but you have to somehow encode knowledge of algebraic laws, and how to match those laws to complex trees. You might hardwire one or two algebraic laws (e.g., x+0 -> x; y-y -> 0) but hardwiring many laws this way will produce an impossible mess because of how they interact.
JavaCC might form part of such an answer, but only a small part; the rest of the solution is hard enough so you are better off looking for an alternative rather than trying to build it all on top of JavaCC.
You need a more organized approach for this: a Program Transformation System (PTS). A typical PTS will allow you specify
a grammar for an arbitrary language (in your case, simply polynomials),
automatically parses instance to ASTs and can regenerate valid text from the AST. A good PTS will let you write source-to-source transformation rules that the PTS will apply automatically the instance AST; in your case you'd write down the algebraic laws as source-to-source rules and then the PTS does all the work.
An example is too long to provide here. But here I describe how to define formulas suitable for early calculus classes, and how to define algebraic rules that simply such formulas including applying some class calculus derivative laws.
With sufficient/significant effort, you can build your own PTS on top of JavaCC/JJTree. This is likely to take a few man-years. Easier to get a PTS rather than repeat all that work.
I would write a function which can parse the multiplication of 2 algebraic expressions in GF(2), i.e any variable in the expression only take on 2 possible values 0 or 1, so a^2 = a,(0^2 = 0, 1^2 = 1)
As an example, if we expand (a+b)*(a+c) in GF(2), we should get
(a + b)*(a + c) = a^2 + a*b + a*c + b*c = a + a*b + a*c + b*c.
However, I am not sure how to start about the parsing of 2 algebraic expressions using strings. Any suggestion/ help is appreciated. Thanks!
I would recommend taking a look at OMeta, by Alex Warth, and/or PetitParser, by Lucas Rengli. Both are excellent frameworks for writing parsers. The first one is for JS, the second for Smalltalk.
Here are some few initial lines of code showing how to write your parser in PetitParser. Every fragment is a method of your own subclass of PPCompositeParser.
constant
ˆ$0 asParser / $1 asParser
variable
^#letter asParser
timesOp
^#blank asParser star , $* asParser, #blank asParser star
sumOp
^#blank asParser star, $* asParser, #blank asParser star
element
^self constant / self variable
term
^self element , (self timesOp , self element) star
etc.
I'm not saying this is trivial. I'm only saying that this is where I would start. Note also that once you have your grammar in place you might want to subclass it so you can generate more appropriate productions, etc.
Writing parsers for big complicated languages can be hard. But writing parsers for algebraic expressions (GF(2) or otherwise) is pretty easy.
See my SO answer on how to write such parsers easily: Is there an alternative for flex/bison that is usable on 8-bit embedded systems?
The GF(2) bit is about semantic interpretation of what such a formula means. It doesn't matter at all for parsing, which is purely about syntax.
Where meaning comes into play is when you want to interpret the formula.
At some point, you may want to evaluate the expression using values for the variables. To do that, you have to capture the formula as a data structure (usually called an (abstract) syntax tree), and then walk that tree to compute the desired result. That link also discusses how to do that.
If you want to manipulate the formula symbolically, you're in an entirely different ball game. Parsing is still easy, but formula manipulation is not, and you'll want to use tools that are designed to do such symbolic manipulation; they generally define thier own parsing machinery (and make it easy to use) to ensure that the captured parse can be manipulated. And of course, you'll have to define what the rules of you symbolic manipulation are.
You can see an example of how to write something pretty close to your needs at Symbolic Algebra with a program transformation system. (This a tool that my company builds).
I am getting the user to input a function, e.g. y = 2x^2 + 3, as a string. What I am looking to do is to enter that string into TChart and for TChart to graph the function.
As far as I know, TChart/TeeChart will only accept X values that are assigned values, e.g. -10 to 10 for X, so the X value would need to be calculated each time - this isn't an issue.
The issue is getting each part of the inputted function and substituting the X-values into each part. The workaround I have found is to get the user to enter the degree for each part of the function, e.g. 2 for X^2, 3 for X^3, etc. but is there a cleaner way of doing this?
If I could convert the inputted string into a Mathematical formula which TeeChart would accept, that would be the ideal outcome.
Saying that you can't use external units effectively makes your question unanswerable in the SO format, because the topic is far broader (and deeper) that can comfortably be dealt with in SO's Q&A format. So the following is at best an outline:
If you want to, or have to, write a DIY expression evaluator, one way to do it is to proceed as follows:
Write yourself a class that takes a string as input and snips it up into a series of symbols, aka "tokens" which represent the component parts of the expression, e.g, numbers, operators, parentheses, names of functions, names of variables, etc; these tokens might themselves be records or class instances and need to include a mechanisms for storing values associated with particular symbols (e.g. the tokens that represent numbers in the input). This step is called "tokenisation" or "lexing". Store the resulting list of symbols in a list or similiar structure. This class needs to implement a mechanism to retrieve the next symbol from the list (usually, this method is called something like "NextToken") and indicate whether there are any symbols left. This class also needs a mechanism to "put back" a symbol (or, equivalently, "peek" the symbol following the current one).
Then, write yourself a s/ware machine which takes the tokenised symbols and "evaluates" the list of symbols to produce the (mathematical) result you're after. This step is an order of magnitude or two more difficult than the tokenisation step. There are numerous ways to do it. As I said an a comment earlier, a recursive descent parser is probably the most tractable approach if you've never done anything like this before. There are countless examples in textbooks, but here's a link to an article about a Delphi implementation that should be understandable as an intro:
http://www8.umoncton.ca/umcm-deslierres_michel/Calcs/ParsingMathExpr-1.html
That article begins by noting that there are numerous pre-existing Delphi expression evaluators but makes the point that they are not necessarily the best place to start for someone wanting to learn how to write an evaluator/parser rather than just use one. Instead it goes through the coding of an evaluator to implement this simple expression grammar:
expression : term | term + term | term − term
term : factor | factor * factor | factor / factor
factor : number | ( expression ) | + factor | − factor
(the vertical bar | denotes ‘or’)
The article has a link to a second part which shows had to add exponentiation to the evaluator - this is trickier than it might sound and involves issues of ambiguity: e.g. how to evaluate - and what does it mean to write - an expression like
x^y^z
? This relates to the issue of "associativity": most operators are "left associative" which means that they bind more tightly to what's on the left of them than what's on their right. The exponentiation operator is an example of the reverse, where the operator binds more tightly to what's on its right.
Have fun!
By the way, you used to see suggestions to implement an evaluator using the "shunting yard algorithm"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shunting-yard_algorithm
to convert an "infix" expression where the operators are between the operands, as in 1 + 3 * 4 to RPN (reverse Polish notation), as used on older HP calculators. The reason to do that was that RPN makes for much more efficient evaluation of an expression that the infix equivalent. Ymmv, but personally I found that implementing the SY algorithm properly was actually trickier than learning how to write an evaluator in the expression/term/factor style.
Fwiw, RPN is the basis of the Forth programming language, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forth_%28programming_language%29, so you could write a Forth implementation in Delphi if you wanted!
Let's say in the example lower case is constant and upper case is variable.
I'd like to have programs that can "intelligently" do specified tasks like algebra, but teaching the program new methods should be easy using symbols understood by humans. For example if the program told these facts:
aX+bX=(a+b)X
if a=bX then X=a/b
Then it should be able to perform these operations:
2a+3a=5a
3x+3x=6x
3x=1 therefore x=1/3
4x+2x=1 -> 6x=1 therefore x= 1/6
I was trying to do similar things with Prolog as it can easily "understand" variables, but then I had too many complications, mainly because two describing a relationship both ways results in a crash. (not easy to sort out)
To summarise: I want to know if a program which can be taught algebra by using mathematic symbols only. I'd like to know if other people have tried this and how complicated it is expected to be. The purpose of this is to make programming easier (runtime is not so important)
It depends on what do you want machine to do and how intelligent it should be.
Your question is mostly about AI but not ML. AI deals with formalization of "human" tasks while ML (though being a subset of AI) is about building models from data.
Described program may be implemented like this:
Each fact form a pattern. Program given with an expression and some patterns can try to apply some of them to expression and see what happens. If you want your program to be able to, for example, solve quadratic equations given rule like ax² + bx + c = 0 → x = (-b ± sqrt(b²-4ac))/(2a) then it'd be designed as follows:
Somebody gives a set of rules. Rule consists of a pattern and an outcome (solution or equivalent form). Think about the pattern as kind of a regular expression.
Then the program is asked to show some intelligence and prove its knowledge via doing something with a given expression. Here comes the major part:
you build a graph of expressions by applying possible rules (if a pattern is applicable to an expression you add new vertex with the corresponding outcome).
Then you run some path-search algorithm (A*, for example) to find sequence of transformations leading to the form like x = ...
I think this is an interesting question, although it off topic in SO (tool recommendation)
But nevertheless, because it captured my imagination, I wrote couple of function using R that can solve stuff like that quite easily
First, you'll have to install R, after words you'll need to download package called stringr
So in R console run
install.packages("stringr")
library(stringr)
And then you can define the following functions that I wrote
FirstFunc <- function(temp){
paste0(eval(parse(text = gsub("[A-Z]", "", temp))), unique(str_extract_all(temp, "[A-Z]")[[1]]))
}
SecondFunc <- function(temp){
eval(parse(text = strsplit(temp, "=")[[1]][2])) / eval(parse(text = gsub("[[:alpha:]]", "", strsplit(temp, "=")[[1]][1])))
}
Now, the first function will solve equations like
aX+bX=(a+b)X
While the second will solve equations like
4x+2x=1
For example
FirstFunc("3X+6X-2X-3X")
will return
"4X"
Now this functions is pretty primitive (mostly for the propose of illustration) and will solve equation that contain only one variable type, something like FirstFunc("3X-2X-2Y") won't give the correct result (but the function could be easily modified)
The second function will solve stuff like
SecondFunc("4x-2x=1")
will return
0.5
or
SecondFunc("4x+2x*3x=1")
will return
0.1
Note that this function also works only for one unknown variable (x) but could be easily modified too
When I write math in LaTeX I often need to perform simple arithmetic on numbers in my LaTeX source, like 515.1544 + 454 = ???.
I usually copy-paste the LaTeX code into Google to get the result, but I still have to manually change the syntax, e.g.
\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})
must be changed to
154,7/25 - (289 - 1337/42)
It seems trivial to write a program to do this for the most commonly used operations.
Is there a calculator which understand this syntax?
EDIT:
I know that doing this perfectly is impossible (because of the halting problem). Doing it for the simple cases I need is trivial. \frac, \cdot, \sqrt and a few other tags would do the trick. The program could just return an error for cases it does not understand.
WolframAlpha can take input in TeX form.
http://blog.wolframalpha.com/2010/09/30/talk-to-wolframalpha-in-tex/
The LaTeXCalc project is designed to do just that. It will read a TeX file and do the computations. For more information check out the home page at http://latexcalc.sourceforge.net/
The calc package allows you to do some calculations in source, but only within commands like \setcounter and \addtolength. As far as I can tell, this is not what you want.
If you already use sage, then the sagetex package is pretty awesome (if not, it's overkill). It allows you get nicely formatted output from input like this:
The square of
$\begin{pmatrix}
1 & 2 \\
3 & 4
\end{pmatrix}$
is \sage{matrix([[1, 2], [3,4]])^2}.
The prime factorization of the current page number is \sage{factor(\thepage)}
As Andy says, the answer is yes there is a calculator that can understand most latex formulas: Emacs.
Try the following steps (assuming vanilla emacs):
Open emacs
Open your .tex file (or activate latex-mode)
position the point somewhere between the two $$ or e.g. inside the begin/end environment of the formula (or even matrix).
use calc embedded mode for maximum awesomeness
So with point in the formula you gave above:
$\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})$
press C-x * d to duplicate the formula in the line below and enter calc-embedded mode which should already have activated a latex variant of calc for you. Your buffer now looks like this:
$\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})$
$\frac{-37651}{150}$`
Note that the fraction as already been transformed as far as possible. Doing the same again (C-x * d) and pressing c f to convert the fractional into a floating point number yields the following buffer:
$\frac{154,7}{25} - (289 - \frac{1337}{42})$
$\frac{-37651}{150}$
$-251.006666667$
I used C-x * d to duplicate the formula and then enter embedded mode in order to have the intermediate values, however there is also C-x * e which avoids the duplication and simply enters embedded mode for the current formula.
If you are interested you should really have a look at the info page for Emacs Calc - Embedded Mode. And in general the help for the Gnu Emaca Calculator together with the awesome interactive tutorial.
You can run an R function called Sweave on a (mostly TeX with some R) file that can replace R expressions with their results in Tex.
A tutorial can be found here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/6451985/Learning-to-Sweave-in-APA-Style
My calculator can do that. To get the formatted output, double-click the result formula and press ctrl+c to copy it.
It can do fairly advanced stuff too (differentiation, easy integrals (and not that easy ones)...).
https://calculator-algebra.org/
A sample computation:
https://calculator-algebra.org:8166/#%7B%22currentPage%22%3A%22calculator%22%2C%22calculatorInput%22%3A%22%5C%5Cfrac%7B1%2B2%7D%7B3%7D%3B%20d%2Fdx(arctan%20(2x%2B3))%22%2C%22monitoring%22%3A%22true%22%7D
There is a way to do what you want just not quite how you describe.
You can use the fp package (\usepackage[options]{fp}) the floating point package will do anything you want; solving equations, adding dividing and many more. Unfortunately it will not read the LaTeX math you instead have to do something a little different, the documentation is very poor so I'll give an example here.
for instance if you want to do (2x3)/5 you would type:
\FPmul\p{2}{3} % \p is the assignment of the operation 2x3
\FPupn\p{\p{} 7 round} % upn evaluates the assignment \p and rounds to 7dp
\FPdiv\q{\p}{5} % divides the assigned value p by 5 names result q
\FPupn\q{\q{} 4 round} % rounds the result to 4 decimal places and evaluates
$\frac{2\times3}{5}=\FPprint\q$ % This will print the result of the calculations in the math.
the FP commands are always ibvisible, only FPprint prints the result associated with it so your documents will not be messy, FP commands can be placed wherever you wish (not verb) as long as they are before the associated FPprint.
You could just paste it into symbolab which as a bonus has free step by step solutions. Also since symbolab uses mathquill it instantly formats your latex.
Considering that LaTeX itself is a Turing-complete markup language I strongly doubt you can build something like this that isn't built directly into LaTeX. Furthermore, LaTeX math matkup itself has next to no semantic meaning, it merely describes the visual appearance.
That being said, you can probably hack together something which recognizes a non-programmable subset of LaTeX math markup and spits out the result in the same way. If all you're interested in is simple arithmetics with fractions and integers (careful with decimal fractions, though, as they may appear as 3{,}141... in German texts :)) this shouldn't be too hard. But once you start with integrals, matrices, etc. I fear that LaTeX lacks expressiveness to accurately describe your intentions. It is a document preparation system, after all and thus not very suitable as input for computer algebra systems.
Side note: You can switch to Word which has—in its current version—a math markup language which is sufficiently LaTeX-like (by now it even supports LaTeX markup) and yet still Google-friendly for simpler terms:
With the free Microsoft Math add-in you can even let Word calculate expressions in-place:
There is none, because it is generally not possible.
LaTeX math mode markup is presentational markup and there are cases in which it does not provide enough information to calculate the expression.
That was one of the reasons MathML content markup was created and also why MathML is used in Mathematica. MathML actually is sort of two languages in one:
presentation markup
content markup
To accomplish what you are after you'll have to have MathML with comibned presentation and content markup (see MathML spec).
In my opinion your best bet is to use MathML (even if it is verbose) and convert to LaTeX when necessary. That said, I also like LaTeX syntax best and maybe what we need is a compact syntax for MathML (something similar in spirit to RelaxNG compact syntax).
For calculations with LaTeX you can use a CalcTeX package.
This package understand elements of LaTeX language and makes an calculations, for example your problem is avialble on
http://sg.bzip.pl/CalcTeX/examples/frac.tgz
or just please write
\noindent
For calculation please use following enviromentals
$515.1544 + 454$
or
\[ \frac{154.7}{25}-(289-\frac{1337}{42.})
\]
or
\begin{equation}
154.7/25-(289-1337/42.)
\end{equation}
For more info please visite project web site or contact author of this project.
For performing the math within your LaTeX itself, you might also look into the pgfmath package, which is more powerful and convenient than the calc package. You can find out how to use it from Part VI of The TikZ and PGF Packages Manual, which you can find here (version 2.10 currently): http://mirror.unl.edu/ctan/graphics/pgf/base/doc/generic/pgf/pgfmanual.pdf
Emacs calc-mode accepts latex-input. I use it daily. Press "d", followed by "L" to enter latex input mode. Press "'" to open a prompt where you can paste your tex.
Anyone saing it is not possible is wrong.
IIRC Mathematica can do it.
There is none, because it is generally not possible. LaTeX math mode
markup is presentational markup and there are cases in which it does
not provide enough information to calculate the expression.
You are right. LaTeX as it is does not provide enough info to make any calculations.Moreover, it does not represent any information to do it. But nobody prevents to wright in LaTeX format a text that contains such an information.
It is a difficult path, because you need to build a system of rules superimposed on what content ofthe text in Latex format needs to contain that it would be recognizable by your interpreter. And then convince the user that it is necessary to learn, etc. etc...
The easiest way to create a logical and intuitive calculator of mathematical expressions. And the expression is already possible to convert latex. It's almost like what you said. This is implemented in the program which I have pointed to. AnEasyCalc allows to type an expression as you type the plane text in any text editor. It checks, calculates and generate LateX string by its own then. Its very easy and rapid work. Just try and you will see that.
This is not exactly what you are asking for but it is a nice package
that you can include in a LaTeX document to do all kind of operations including arithmetic, calculus and even vectors and matrices:
The package name is "calculator"
http://mirror.unl.edu/ctan/macros/latex/contrib/calculator/calculator.pdf
The latex2sympy2 Python library can parse LaTeX math expressions.
from latex2sympy2 import latex2sympy
tex_str = r"""YOUR TEX MATH HERE"""
tex_str = r"\frac{9\pi}{\ln(12)}+22" # example TeX math
sympy_object = latex2sympy(tex_str)
evaluated_tex = float(sympy_object.evalf())
print(evaluated_tex)
This Python 3 code evaluates 9𝜋/ln(12)+22 (in its LaTeX from above) to 33.37842899841745.
The snippet above only handles basic algebraic simplification (math expressions without variables). Since the library converts LaTeX math to SymPy objects, the above code can easily be tweaked and extended to handle much more complicated LaTeX math (including solving derivatives, integrals, etc...).
The latex2sympy2 library can be installed via the pip command: pip install --user latex2sympy2
<>
try the AnEasyCalc program. It allows to get the latex formula very easy:
http://steamandwater.od.ua/AnEasyCalc/
:)