Skip to main content

matrix - Time-efficient manipulation (zeroing) of expression


I have huge matrices in the form of


mtx1 = {{24+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8],24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8],24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8]},{24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8],24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8],24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8]},{24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8],24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]+24 FF[7,8] GG[7,8],24+24 FF[5,10] GG[5,10]+24 FF[6,9] GG[5,10]+24 FF[7,8] GG[5,10]+24 FF[5,10] GG[6,9]+24 FF[6,9] GG[6,9]+24 FF[7,8] GG[6,9]+24 FF[5,10] GG[7,8]+24 FF[6,9] GG[7,8]}};

but the matrices I use are much bigger. Now I want to get rid of each term that contains FF[___] or GG[___]. Both always come together, therefore I used


mtx2 = mtx1 /. FF[___] -> 0; 

(* mtx2={{24, 24, 24}, {24, 24, 24}, {24, 24, 24}} *)

and got the desired result in mtx2. Unfortunatly it turns out that this zeroing is extremly time-consuming. For my huge matrices, it takes on the order of 100 seconds.


Question:


Is there a more time-efficient way to zero all FF[___]-terms in mtx1?


Comparison:


I compare several approaches, for a big 3 big test-matrix. The approaches also include the construction of the matrix.


my original approach



  • {174.8417751, 65.4913582, 25.3878123} seconds



Coefficient-Creation of Matrix



  • {134.4920621, 51.4260521sec, 19.6079772} seconds


belisarius' Block-evaluation methode



  • {82.3675688, 31.5639078, 12.3822025} seconds


eldo's Join/Partition




  • {77.8615328, 29.0973367, 11.2742769} seconds


kguler's Block-evaluation



  • {75.8906436, 29.1315892, 11.6544345} seconds


Mr.Wizard's mtx1[[All, All, 1]]



  • {75.5589726, 29.0378220, 11.9491954} seconds



Edit


The full problem, including the matrix-creation is posted here: Time-efficient creation of matrix



Answer



For the example you gave FF[___] and GG[___] are the only non-number terms, therefore by polynomial sort order you could use simply:


mtx1[[All, All, 1]]


{{24, 24, 24}, {24, 24, 24}, {24, 24, 24}}


I shall now look at your newer question where I anticipate a more representative example.


Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

plotting - Plot 4D data with color as 4th dimension

I have a list of 4D data (x position, y position, amplitude, wavelength). I want to plot x, y, and amplitude on a 3D plot and have the color of the points correspond to the wavelength. I have seen many examples using functions to define color but my wavelength cannot be expressed by an analytic function. Is there a simple way to do this? Answer Here a another possible way to visualize 4D data: data = Flatten[Table[{x, y, x^2 + y^2, Sin[x - y]}, {x, -Pi, Pi,Pi/10}, {y,-Pi,Pi, Pi/10}], 1]; You can use the function Point along with VertexColors . Now the points are places using the first three elements and the color is determined by the fourth. In this case I used Hue, but you can use whatever you prefer. Graphics3D[ Point[data[[All, 1 ;; 3]], VertexColors -> Hue /@ data[[All, 4]]], Axes -> True, BoxRatios -> {1, 1, 1/GoldenRatio}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Filling between two spheres in SphericalPlot3D

Manipulate[ SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, Mesh -> None, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], {n, 0, 1}] I cant' seem to be able to make a filling between two spheres. I've already tried the obvious Filling -> {1 -> {2}} but Mathematica doesn't seem to like that option. Is there any easy way around this or ... Answer There is no built-in filling in SphericalPlot3D . One option is to use ParametricPlot3D to draw the surfaces between the two shells: Manipulate[ Show[SphericalPlot3D[{1, 2 - n}, {θ, 0, Pi}, {ϕ, 0, 1.5 Pi}, PlotPoints -> 15, PlotRange -> {-2.2, 2.2}], ParametricPlot3D[{ r {Sin[t] Cos[1.5 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[1.5 Pi], Cos[t]}, r {Sin[t] Cos[0 Pi], Sin[t] Sin[0 Pi], Cos[t]}}, {r, 1, 2 - n}, {t, 0, Pi}, PlotStyle -> Yellow, Mesh -> {2, 15}]], {n, 0, 1}]
Post a Comment
Read more

plotting - Mathematica: 3D plot based on combined 2D graphs

I have several sigmoidal fits to 3 different datasets, with mean fit predictions plus the 95% confidence limits (not symmetrical around the mean) and the actual data. I would now like to show these different 2D plots projected in 3D as in but then using proper perspective. In the link here they give some solutions to combine the plots using isometric perspective, but I would like to use proper 3 point perspective. Any thoughts? Also any way to show the mean points per time point for each series plus or minus the standard error on the mean would be cool too, either using points+vertical bars, or using spheres plus tubes. Below are some test data and the fit function I am using. Note that I am working on a logit(proportion) scale and that the final vertical scale is Log10(percentage). (* some test data *) data = Table[Null, {i, 4}]; data[[1]] = {{1, -5.8}, {2, -5.4}, {3, -0.8}, {4, -0.2}, {5, 4.6}, {1, -6.4}, {2, -5.6}, {3, -0.7}, {4, 0.04}, {5, 1.0}, {1, -6.8}, {2, -4.7}, {3, -1....
Post a Comment
Read more