Error

 2 Pages<12
 Previous Topic Next Topic
 Jean Giraud #21 Posted : 14 June 2021 02:31:15(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC)Posts: 5,430Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 675 post(s) Originally Posted by: anatolsen But I still need to calculate the Pearson correlation coefficientsThere are 3 Pearson coefficients.From there, up you go. Pirson-0 [1].sm (41kb) downloaded 6 time(s).
 anatolsen #22 Posted : 14 June 2021 13:55:57(UTC) Rank: MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 08/06/2021(UTC)Posts: 15Location: Караганда Dear overlord.Thank you very much.All problems, as I see, are solved.How to use the loop for calculations (for loop and while), I, in general, imagined, but I did not guess to look in the sum functions.The fact is that I use a non-English version, and the help in it does not work very well yet.Thanks.There is only one small problem left – is it possible to reduce the accuracy of calculating Sq, respectively Sqmin? As was seen in the calculations, they are calculated with an accuracy of up to 15 decimal places. And this obviously affects the calculation time. Whereas 9 decimal places, maybe even 8 digits, would be enough for me.As you rightly pointed out – the calculation time becomes huge.But I now got out of the situation so that first I manually select an approximate solution (about 5-10 minutes). Then I set the iteration iteration step to 2 or 3 with a wide limit. The calculation takes 40 minutes. After setting the iteration step to 1, simultaneously reducing the range of values. The calculation takes about 10 minutes. Thus, the required accuracy is obtained – especially since the integration after the calculation confirms the accuracy of the calculation.I'll also calculate the Pearson coefficient – in general, it will be fine, you can't ask for anything better. For one set of source data, it takes about 1 hour. If we have to count three normal distributions instead of two, the time will increase, of course, but I think it will remain within reasonable limits.Although, if it were possible to reduce the accuracy of the calculations, the calculation would become even easier.Regards.
 anatolsen #23 Posted : 14 June 2021 14:04:03(UTC) Rank: MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 08/06/2021(UTC)Posts: 15Location: Караганда Dear Martin KraskaI tried to compose the solution as you suggested.But for some reason, the program gives an error.In addition, I have a question – you suggested a solution when the approximation is based on the sum of two normal distributions. And in my source data, this does not always happen. It is often necessary to look for an approximation by the sum of the three distributions. Will this increase the calculation time to inconvenient values? Fit-1.sm (11kb) downloaded 3 time(s).Regards.
 anatolsen #24 Posted : 14 June 2021 14:14:28(UTC) Rank: MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 08/06/2021(UTC)Posts: 15Location: Караганда Originally Posted by: Jean Giraud There are 3 Pearson coefficients.From there, up you go.ThanksYour solution record is certainly more compact.However, it will be more difficult for me to modify it for my other cases compared to the Overlord entry.Regards.
 overlord #25 Posted : 14 June 2021 14:47:14(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 23/07/2013(UTC)Posts: 365Was thanked: 100 time(s) in 74 post(s) Originally Posted by: anatolsen There is only one small problem left – is it possible to reduce the accuracy of calculating Sq, respectively Sqmin?I have an idea for it, for your original function. Don't know if it is applicable or I have the right idea or skills. I will try to implement when I am available. Regards
 Jean Giraud #26 Posted : 14 June 2021 15:05:40(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC)Posts: 5,430Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 675 post(s) Originally Posted by: anatolsen Your solution record is certainly more compact.However, it will be more difficult for me to modify it for my other casesProblem is that we don't know what you are looking for.Are you looking for the best fit to your data set ???If so, minute job.Please, don't hesitate ... Jean Pearson UNK.sm (41kb) downloaded 6 time(s).
 anatolsen #27 Posted : 14 June 2021 17:49:53(UTC) Rank: MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 08/06/2021(UTC)Posts: 15Location: Караганда Originally Posted by: overlord I have an idea for it, for your original function. Don't know if it is applicable or I have the right idea or skills. I will try to implement when I am available. RegardsThanks.Here is the entire calculation from start to finish as it currently stands Pirsonend.sm (37kb) downloaded 6 time(s).Regards
 anatolsen #28 Posted : 14 June 2021 18:16:14(UTC) Rank: MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 08/06/2021(UTC)Posts: 15Location: Караганда Originally Posted by: Jean Giraud Problem is that we don't know what you are looking for.Are you looking for the best fit to your data set ???If so, minute job.Please, don't hesitate ... JeanSo I wrote down what I needed at the very beginning.There is a data set (two rows of numbers).Basically, they should be random sets.However, in reality, two or even three different data sets are mixed there.I need to separate them - to identify those normal distributions that correspond to pure data sets (not mixed data sets).In the previous replica of for overlord, I posted the full calculation method.Now only one question remains. Iterating through 9 parameters requires a lot of time. And the calculation is carried out with an accuracy that is superfluous for my purposes. Sq and Sqmin are calculated with an accuracy of 15 decimal places. And I would have more than enough 8 or 9 digits after the decimal point. This would significantly reduce the calculation time.And here is the Pearson correlation coefficient I have 0.9999, whereas I would have more than enough 0.9On the other hand, perhaps the Pearson coefficient should not be worsened.Here in that calculation (in the previous replica) I had an error after integrating 1.5%, and I slightly knocked down the parameters, and it increased to 2.4%.And this is more important than the Pearson coefficient. I would not count it at all, but I will definitely be asked a question about this coefficient.There the definite integral is taken WW(x). And it is equal to 0.9658.And initially I have a histogram g2(x), and if you take the integral of it, it will be equal to 0.99.And in my case, this is more important than the Pearson coefficient.
 Jean Giraud #29 Posted : 14 June 2021 20:28:25(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC)Posts: 5,430Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 675 post(s) Originally Posted by: anatolsen So I wrote down what I needed at the very beginning.I need to sum three normal distributions.Normal PDF almost don't exist in physics unless intentionallike shooting 100 times the target with the same gun.Under the hood there may be Logistic, Weibull noise.If you have these 3 data sets from raw experiment,please: attach as collected, absolutely untouched.Cheers ... Jean
 anatolsen #30 Posted : 15 June 2021 15:19:52(UTC) Rank: MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 08/06/2021(UTC)Posts: 15Location: Караганда Originally Posted by: Jean Giraud Normal PDF almost don't exist in physics unless intentionallike shooting 100 times the target with the same gun.Under the hood there may be Logistic, Weibull noise.If you have these 3 data sets from raw experiment,please: attach as collected, absolutely untouched.Cheers ... JeanSo here it is. Two cases. I counted the first one in the very first examples. There, the three normal distributions are summed up. In the last example, the other case is that two normal distributions are summed up.But, actually, the problem is solved.Only the time for calculating each case is too long.
 Jean Giraud #31 Posted : 15 June 2021 16:27:50(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC)Posts: 5,430Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 675 post(s) Originally Posted by: anatolsen So here it is.You forgot to attach the untouched experimental data set.That's the only thing I need in statistical work.
 anatolsen #32 Posted : 15 June 2021 18:19:52(UTC) Rank: MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 08/06/2021(UTC)Posts: 15Location: Караганда Originally Posted by: Jean Giraud You forgot to attach the untouched experimental data set.That's the only thing I need in statistical work.Why did I forget? Both sets of data are there.Here with two normal distributions (the third one is not visible).Here with three normal distributions.In principle, it is still necessary to take into account that these are histograms.This is given as X the middle of the column.Initially, the column width is 20 units, then 40 is for X=180, then in the first case the width is 100, and the last column is 50.In the second case, the last three columns are 50 each.
 Jean Giraud #33 Posted : 15 June 2021 20:24:55(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC)Posts: 5,430Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 675 post(s) Originally Posted by: anatolsen In principle, it is still necessary to take into account that these are histograms.This is what I reject: freaked experimental data.An histogram is the first freak in statistical work.I will make my own from a long time ago Smath utility.Please, attach the Smath document that contents the twosets of raw data as collected.At this point, you have no project for collaboration.Alternately, let me know and I will delete myself from this thread.Cheers ... Jean.
 overlord #34 Posted : 15 June 2021 22:12:14(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 23/07/2013(UTC)Posts: 365Was thanked: 100 time(s) in 74 post(s) Originally Posted by: anatolsen Originally Posted by: Jean Giraud Problem is that we don't know what you are looking for.Are you looking for the best fit to your data set ???If so, minute job.Please, don't hesitate ... JeanNow only one question remains. Iterating through 9 parameters requires a lot of time. And the calculation is carried out with an accuracy that is superfluous for my purposes. Sq and Sqmin are calculated with an accuracy of 15 decimal places. And I would have more than enough 8 or 9 digits after the decimal point. This would significantly reduce the calculation time.And here is the Pearson correlation coefficient I have 0.9999, whereas I would have more than enough 0.9Here is your Sq and Sqmin calculations.I have noticed Sqmin make a peak to lowest and rise again at some point.I coded to find those points range within first iteration.This is done by evaluating variables one by one, not all at one.All iterations are taken under 5 seconds on my PC.Please inform if this results are enough for you.Regards eng-min_rev_fast.pdf (618kb) downloaded 2 time(s). eng-min_rev_fast.sm (41kb) downloaded 3 time(s).Edited by user 15 June 2021 23:49:52(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified
 Jean Giraud #35 Posted : 16 June 2021 00:37:16(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC)Posts: 5,430Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 675 post(s) Originally Posted by: Jean Giraud This is what I reject: freaked experimental data.If I understand what you said: you have two data sets.No problem to approximate both and average.Two data sets for the same experiment ... NON-sense.If the underlying phenomenon is same, collect more data.Read carefully this document.The Lorentz is pure brute force from well collected data.Experimental data set represents something to me.R is a freeware advanced statistical software, try it.Cheers ... Jean. UnknownData.sm (65kb) downloaded 4 time(s).
 overlord #36 Posted : 16 June 2021 01:13:29(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 23/07/2013(UTC)Posts: 365Was thanked: 100 time(s) in 74 post(s) A revised Sq and Sqmin calculations of previous.All iterations are taken under 25 seconds on my PC.Sqmin is dropped to 6x10^-6. And now I am out of ideas.Please inform if this results are enough for you.Regards eng-min_rev_fast.pdf (672kb) downloaded 7 time(s). eng-min_rev_fast.sm (48kb) downloaded 8 time(s).
 Jean Giraud #37 Posted : 16 June 2021 15:09:45(UTC) Rank: Advanced MemberGroups: Registered Joined: 04/07/2015(UTC)Posts: 5,430Was thanked: 845 time(s) in 675 post(s) Originally Posted by: overlord Please inform if this results are enough for you.You can plot the BarSize like in post # 12.
 Users browsing this topic
 Similar Topics Approximate solution of equation system? (Questions) by Ushwood 14/08/2018 13:43:15(UTC)
 2 Pages<12
Forum Jump
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.