Solve for x, a and b in matrix equation aAx + bBx = C

  • Thread starter Thread starter Panteren
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Matrix
Panteren
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
Hello everybody

I recently encountered the following equation C(t) = a\int_0^t{x(\tau)d\tau} + b\int_0^t{\int_0^\tau{x(\tau')d\tau'd\tau}}, where C, a, b and x are greater or equal to zero. C and x are vectors - in my case around 3500 long - and a and b are constants.

If we take sufficiently small steps we can replace the integrals with summations:
C(t) = a\Sigma_0^t{x} + b\Sigma_0^t\Sigma_0^t{x}.
Such a summation can also be written as a matrix of the form [1 0 0; 1 1 0; 1 1 1] etc. using Matlab notation and [1 0 0; 2 1 0; 3 2 1] etc. for det double summation.

Now we have a system: C = aAx + bBx where C and x are Nx1 matrices, a and b are constants, and A and B are NxN matrices. I wish to solve it in some least norm sense for x, a and b, with the constraints that x, a and b should be equal to or greater than zero.

I have tried to solve the first equation using some of the nonlinear optimization tools in Matlab with poor results. I hoped it would be easier to solve when rewritten as a linear system, but I cannot see how.

Any suggestions would be most welcome.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
I suppose τ' is a different τ? Like saying τ1 and τ2?

If so, then the inner integral is equal to x(τ2), which yields:

C(t)= a\Sigma_0^t{x} + b\Sigma_0^t{x(τ_2)}

Edit: Nevermind, I thought it was x'(τ')
 
Ok, I found what was bugging me:

You replaced the double integral with two sums from 0-t. However, the inner sum should be from τ'=0 to τ'=τ, and the outer sum should be τ=0 to τ=t
 
meldraft said:
Ok, I found what was bugging me:

You replaced the double integral with two sums from 0-t. However, the inner sum should be from τ'=0 to τ'=τ, and the outer sum should be τ=0 to τ=t

Thank you. You are correct. That is what I meant. Equivalent to using two 'cumsum' in Matlab.
 
Welcome to PF, Panteren! :smile:

I take it your system is actually the following?
$$C(t_i) = aAx(t_i) + bBx(t_i)$$

In that case the solution in a least-norm-sense is given by a least-squares solution.

What you'd do is minimize ##\sum_i (C(t_i) - aAx(t_i) + bBx(t_i))^2##, which is the sum-squared deviation given a certain a and b.
To solve it you'd calculate the partial derivatives to a and also to b and set them to zero.

You'll find the system of equations:
$$a \sum_i (Ax(t_i))^2 + b \sum_i Ax(t_i) \cdot Bx(t_i) = \sum_i C(t_i) \cdot Ax(t_i)$$
$$a \sum_i Ax(t_i) \cdot Bx(t_i) + b \sum_i (Bx(t_i))^2 = \sum_i C(t_i) \cdot Bx(t_i)$$

Its solution (for a and b) appears to be what you want.
 
I like Serena said:
Welcome to PF, Panteren! :smile:

Thank you. :smile: I have read the forums for quite some time. Lots of interesting stuff and insight to be found.


I take it your system is actually the following?
$$C(t_i) = aAx(t_i) + bBx(t_i)$$
Yes, but I am not sure I understand the distinction between that and what I wrote? Please elaborate what I have misunderstood or stated unclear :-/?

You'll find the system of equations:
$$a \sum_i (Ax(t_i))^2 + b \sum_i Ax(t_i) \cdot Bx(t_i) = \sum_i C(t_i) \cdot Ax(t_i)$$
$$a \sum_i Ax(t_i) \cdot Bx(t_i) + b \sum_i (Bx(t_i))^2 = \sum_i C(t_i) \cdot Bx(t_i)$$

Its solution (for a and b) appears to be what you want.

Thank you, but the problem is, that x is also unknown. Perhaps it is obvious how to get that in addition to a and b from the system of equations, but I do not follow :-(
If I had x I could just turn it into a standard linear regression problem and likewise if I had the constants a and b, but when I only have A, B, C and the non-negativity constraints on a, b and x ... ?
 
##\textbf{Exercise 10}:## I came across the following solution online: Questions: 1. When the author states in "that ring (not sure if he is referring to ##R## or ##R/\mathfrak{p}##, but I am guessing the later) ##x_n x_{n+1}=0## for all odd $n$ and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible, so that ##x_n=0##" 2. How does ##x_nx_{n+1}=0## implies that ##x_{n+1}## is invertible and ##x_n=0##. I mean if the quotient ring ##R/\mathfrak{p}## is an integral domain, and ##x_{n+1}## is invertible then...
The following are taken from the two sources, 1) from this online page and the book An Introduction to Module Theory by: Ibrahim Assem, Flavio U. Coelho. In the Abelian Categories chapter in the module theory text on page 157, right after presenting IV.2.21 Definition, the authors states "Image and coimage may or may not exist, but if they do, then they are unique up to isomorphism (because so are kernels and cokernels). Also in the reference url page above, the authors present two...
I asked online questions about Proposition 2.1.1: The answer I got is the following: I have some questions about the answer I got. When the person answering says: ##1.## Is the map ##\mathfrak{q}\mapsto \mathfrak{q} A _\mathfrak{p}## from ##A\setminus \mathfrak{p}\to A_\mathfrak{p}##? But I don't understand what the author meant for the rest of the sentence in mathematical notation: ##2.## In the next statement where the author says: How is ##A\to...
Back
Top