Help Solving Non-Linear System

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on fitting experimental data to a non-linear curve defined by f(x)=a*(x+p)^2+b*(x+p)+c, where p is an unknown constant. The user is seeking advice on solving this non-linear system, acknowledging the constraints on the constants a, b, and c, and expressing uncertainty about the appropriate methods to use. They mention the potential use of iterative methods like the Newton-Raphson method to estimate the unknowns, given their ability to control and measure x accurately. The user is cautious about the complexities involved and is looking for guidance on whether their approach is valid or if there are simpler techniques available. The conversation highlights the challenges of fitting data to a non-linear model while managing multiple variables and constraints.
es
Messages
70
Reaction score
0
Hello All,

I was hoping one of the many knowledgeable people on this forum could give me some helpfull advice on how to proceed with the following problem. Basically, I am trying to fit experimental data to a curve.

In general my curve looks like this and I know the constants have the following constraints. I also know the range and domain of the function over the area I am interested in.

f(x)=a*(x^2)+b*x+c,
0<=f(x)<5, 0<x<50, -1<a<0, 0<b<1

I have never seen a negative c and I think the following should hold, |a|<|b|, but I would rather not rely on either if possible.

Oh ya, this is probably obvious but just in case, x is the variable I can control well and f(x) is the measured value. Also, I can vary x over the entire domain given and take many measurements. a, b, and c are constant for one particular setup but will change when I physically change the setup (i.e. switch to new components).

Anyway, this system is linear and quite easy to deal with. Unfortunately this is a sort of a reduced setup. I'll call it Experiment 1. What I really want is Experiment 2 which changes my characteristic equation to:

f(x)=a*(x+p)^2+b*(x+p)+c

Unfortunately I cannot control p or measure it directly (actually if I change to an experiment 3 I can, but there are good engineering reasons to try to avoid doing so. It is also a lot of work and this experiment needs to be repeated many times for different setups so time spent here could result in significant time savings overall) Anyway, I do know its possible range, 0<p<2.

The other constraints still apply. Oh ya, p will be constant throughout
the setup as well.

I believe this system is non-linear (because two unknowns are multiplied together) and I know there are iterative methods to solve such a system but I know very little about them.

I am sure this is a solved problem. Does someone know the name of the solution or technique to solve it? I did do a little googling before writing this post and found some info on root finding. Is this a good technique to try? Perhaps there is some nifty variable substitution I am not seeing that could reduce this to a linear case?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
Are you looking to fit a set of data points, say {(x1,y1),(x2,y2),...,(xn,yn)}, to the parabola y=ax^2+bx+c ? If so, then use the method of least squares.
 
Unfortunately no.
I am trying to fit a set of data points, say {(x1,y1),(x2,y2),...,(xn,yn)}, to the parabola defined by y=a(x+p)^2+b(x+p)+c. Which is non-linear because p is also unknown (unless someone can figure out how to reduce it!) so the method of least squares does not apply.

I have been doing some research into this problem and because I can accurately place x, I think I can also accuratly estimate the derivative. I think I can combine this with the Newton-Raphson method to solve for the unknowns.

Unfortunately I am new to all this so I am pretty scared of hidden gotchas so I am not sure how much I can trust any answer I get. I suppose it would be enough to run the test on the lot and then spot check a couple randomly tested units with the more advanced setup (aka experiment 3 above).
 
Thread 'Video on imaginary numbers and some queries'
Hi, I was watching the following video. I found some points confusing. Could you please help me to understand the gaps? Thanks, in advance! Question 1: Around 4:22, the video says the following. So for those mathematicians, negative numbers didn't exist. You could subtract, that is find the difference between two positive quantities, but you couldn't have a negative answer or negative coefficients. Mathematicians were so averse to negative numbers that there was no single quadratic...
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Thread 'Unit Circle Double Angle Derivations'
Here I made a terrible mistake of assuming this to be an equilateral triangle and set 2sinx=1 => x=pi/6. Although this did derive the double angle formulas it also led into a terrible mess trying to find all the combinations of sides. I must have been tired and just assumed 6x=180 and 2sinx=1. By that time, I was so mindset that I nearly scolded a person for even saying 90-x. I wonder if this is a case of biased observation that seeks to dis credit me like Jesus of Nazareth since in reality...
Back
Top