Skip to main content

functions - Ted's explanation for the 3rd argument of ListCorrelate doesn't apply to the {1, -1} case?


I was reading Ted Ersek's explanation for the usage of ListCorrelate(.nb version can be found here) and noticed something confusing. It's the third example of Specifying the "overhang" using {$K_L$, $K_R$} section:


enter image description here



You may think that it's a typo at first glance, but the output is really correct. Just try it yourself:


{{a1, a2, a3, a4, 0, 0}, {0, a1, a2, a3, a4, 0}, {0, 0, a1, a2, a3, 
   a4}, {a4, 0, 0, a1, a2, a3}, {a3, a4, 0, 0, a1, a2}, {a2, a3, a4, 
   0, 0, a1}, {a1, a2, a3, a4, 0, 0}, {0, a1, a2, a3, a4, 0}, {0, 0, 
   a1, a2, a3, a4}}.{{b1}, {b2}, {b3}, {b4}, {b5}, {b6}}
Flatten[%] === ListCorrelate[{a1, a2, a3, a4}, {b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6}, {1, -1}]


False


The other 3 examples do follow the statement though.


So Ted's theory is simply incomplete but he didn't notice? Or there's some deeper reason (in compatible changes between versions etc.)?



Answer



The fact that False is on his own web page indicates against this being a change between versions but rather something he failed to notice.


Following his equivalence we also have the last kernel element (a4) in the last place in the third row of the left matrix, an indeed that matches the actual output:


m = NestList[RotateRight, {a1, a2, a3, a4, 0, 0}, 2]


$\left( \begin{array}{cccccc} \text{a1} & \text{a2} & \text{a3} & \text{a4} & 0 & 0 \\ 0 & \text{a1} & \text{a2} & \text{a3} & \text{a4} & 0 \\ 0 & 0 & \text{a1} & \text{a2} & \text{a3} & \text{a4} \\ \end{array} \right)$




ListCorrelate[{a1, a2, a3, a4}, {b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6}, {1, -1}]

% === m.{b1, b2, b3, b4, b5, b6}


{a1 b1 + a2 b2 + a3 b3 + a4 b4,
 a1 b2 + a2 b3 + a3 b4 + a4 b5, 
 a1 b3 + a2 b4 + a3 b5 + a4 b6}

True


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

mathematical optimization - Minimizing using indices, error: Part::pkspec1: The expression cannot be used as a part specification

I want to use Minimize where the variables to minimize are indices pointing into an array. Here a MWE that hopefully shows what my problem is. vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@ { Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; Minimize[{Total@((vec1[[#]] - vec2[[u[#]]])^2 & /@ Range[1, 3]), cons}, vars, Integers] The error I get: Part::pkspec1: The expression u[1] cannot be used as a part specification. >> Answer Ok, it seems that one can get around Mathematica trying to evaluate vec2[[u[1]]] too early by using the function Indexed[vec2,u[1]] . The working MWE would then look like the following: vars = u@# & /@ Range[3]; cons = Flatten@{ Table[(u[j] != #) & /@ vars[[j + 1 ;; -1]], {j, 1, 3 - 1}], 1 vec1 = {1, 2, 3}; vec2 = {1, 2, 3}; NMinimize[ {Total@((vec1[[#]] - Indexed[vec2, u[#]])^2 & /@ R...
Post a Comment
Read more

functions - Get leading series expansion term?

Given a function f[x] , I would like to have a function leadingSeries that returns just the leading term in the series around x=0 . For example: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x)] x and leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x^3)/4)/(4 + x)] -(1/(16 x^3)) Is there such a function in Mathematica? Or maybe one can implement it efficiently? EDIT I finally went with the following implementation, based on Carl Woll 's answer: lds[ex_,x_]:=( (ex/.x->(x+O[x]^2))/.SeriesData[U_,Z_,L_List,Mi_,Ma_,De_]:>SeriesData[U,Z,{L[[1]]},Mi,Mi+1,De]//Quiet//Normal) The advantage is, that this one also properly works with functions whose leading term is a constant: lds[Exp[x],x] 1 Answer Update 1 Updated to eliminate SeriesData and to not return additional terms Perhaps you could use: leadingSeries[expr_, x_] := Normal[expr /. x->(x+O[x]^2) /. a_List :> Take[a, 1]] Then for your examples: leadingSeries[(1/x + 2)/(4 + 1/x^2 + x), x] leadingSeries[Exp[x], x] leadingSeries[(1/x + 2 + (1 - 1/x...
Post a Comment
Read more

What is and isn't a valid variable specification for Manipulate?

I have an expression whose terms have arguments (representing subscripts), like this: myExpr = A[0] + V[1,T] I would like to put it inside a Manipulate to see its value as I move around the parameters. (The goal is eventually to plot it wrt one of the variables inside.) However, Mathematica complains when I set V[1,T] as a manipulated variable: Manipulate[Evaluate[myExpr], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, T], 0, 1}] (*Manipulate::vsform: Manipulate argument {V[1,T],0,1} does not have the correct form for a variable specification. >> *) As a workaround, if I get rid of the symbol T inside the argument, it works fine: Manipulate[ Evaluate[myExpr /. T -> 15], {A[0], 0, 1}, {V[1, 15], 0, 1}] Why this behavior? Can anyone point me to the documentation that says what counts as a valid variable? And is there a way to get Manpiulate to accept an expression with a symbolic argument as a variable? Investigations I've done so far: I tried using variableQ from this answer , but it says V[1...
Post a Comment
Read more