Skip to main content

geometry - Why are these methods giving me different results? (Trying to test SplineFit)


I am creating a polymer(where each monomer is of equal length) using this method:



angles = RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[0, 0.2], 40];
a1 = 1;
anglePath1[angles_, a_] := FoldList[# + a {Cos@#2, Sin@#2} &, {0, 0}, Accumulate@angles]
p1 = anglePath1[angles, a1];

Then, I use SplineFit


Needs["Splines`"];
spt = SplineFit[p1, Cubic];
lt = spt[[2, -1]];


Then, I break the polymer into monomer of equal length. To do so, I calculate the arc length of the polymer:


dz = .0000001;
arc = NIntegrate[Norm[(spt[z + dz] - spt[z])/dz], {z, 0, lt}]

mesh = Solve [arc/a1 == div];
meshf = Round[div /. mesh];

After this I extract co-ordinates:


plot = ParametricPlot[spt[t], {t, 0, lt}, 
         MeshFunctions -> {"ArcLength"}, Mesh -> {meshf[[1]]}, 

         MeshStyle -> {PointSize[0.01], Red}]

coord = Cases[Normal@plot, Point[p_] :> p, Infinity];

So, now I calculate distance between each points:


(*distance calculated using initially created co-ordinates*)
Norm /@ Differences@p1

(*distance calculated using co-ordinates grabbed from spline fitted curve*)
Norm /@ Differences@coord


These two distances are different and I don't understand why.


The method calculating arc length and grabbing co-ordinates are from @MichaelE2 answer from this post:



Answer



Your points aren't in order. Change:


coord = Cases[Normal@plot, Point[p_] :> p, Infinity]

by


coord = Sort@Cases[Normal@plot, Point[p_] :> p, Infinity]


Then you'll get


(Norm /@ Differences@p1)[[1 ;; 5]]
(Norm /@ Differences@coord)[[1 ;; 5]]

(*
{1., 1., 1., 1., 1.}
{0.976258, 0.97659, 0.975463, 0.976125, 0.976947}
*)

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