Interpolator surface












2












$begingroup$


Writing:



Clear[u, v];
{a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};

f = ((x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2) c;
g = {a0 Sqrt[u] Cos[v], b0 Sqrt[u] Sin[v], c0 u};
h = {};

For[u = 0, u <= 1, u = u + 0.05,
For[v = 0, v <= 2 Pi, v = v + 0.05,
h = Join[h, {g}]
]
];

FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]


I get:




{a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.}




that's exactly how much you want.



Unfortunately a0, b0, c0 in reality I do not know them, so I should write:



FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]


I get:




{a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104}




which is a result very far from what is expected. How could I fix it?










share|improve this question









$endgroup$

















    2












    $begingroup$


    Writing:



    Clear[u, v];
    {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};

    f = ((x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2) c;
    g = {a0 Sqrt[u] Cos[v], b0 Sqrt[u] Sin[v], c0 u};
    h = {};

    For[u = 0, u <= 1, u = u + 0.05,
    For[v = 0, v <= 2 Pi, v = v + 0.05,
    h = Join[h, {g}]
    ]
    ];

    FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]


    I get:




    {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.}




    that's exactly how much you want.



    Unfortunately a0, b0, c0 in reality I do not know them, so I should write:



    FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]


    I get:




    {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104}




    which is a result very far from what is expected. How could I fix it?










    share|improve this question









    $endgroup$















      2












      2








      2





      $begingroup$


      Writing:



      Clear[u, v];
      {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};

      f = ((x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2) c;
      g = {a0 Sqrt[u] Cos[v], b0 Sqrt[u] Sin[v], c0 u};
      h = {};

      For[u = 0, u <= 1, u = u + 0.05,
      For[v = 0, v <= 2 Pi, v = v + 0.05,
      h = Join[h, {g}]
      ]
      ];

      FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]


      I get:




      {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.}




      that's exactly how much you want.



      Unfortunately a0, b0, c0 in reality I do not know them, so I should write:



      FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]


      I get:




      {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104}




      which is a result very far from what is expected. How could I fix it?










      share|improve this question









      $endgroup$




      Writing:



      Clear[u, v];
      {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};

      f = ((x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2) c;
      g = {a0 Sqrt[u] Cos[v], b0 Sqrt[u] Sin[v], c0 u};
      h = {};

      For[u = 0, u <= 1, u = u + 0.05,
      For[v = 0, v <= 2 Pi, v = v + 0.05,
      h = Join[h, {g}]
      ]
      ];

      FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]


      I get:




      {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.}




      that's exactly how much you want.



      Unfortunately a0, b0, c0 in reality I do not know them, so I should write:



      FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]


      I get:




      {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104}




      which is a result very far from what is expected. How could I fix it?







      calculus-and-analysis fitting interpolation






      share|improve this question













      share|improve this question











      share|improve this question




      share|improve this question










      asked 2 days ago









      TeMTeM

      2,022621




      2,022621






















          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes


















          5












          $begingroup$

          There are no differences in the predictions. What you have is an over-parameterized model. You have attempted to fit too many parameters. The basic model is



          $$f=a_x x^2+a_y y^2$$



          There are really only 2 parameters to fit.



          sol0 = FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.} *)
          f /. sol0 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)

          sol1 = FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104} *)
          f /. sol1 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Sometimes I think I should take a break. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Same here. You might consider just using $(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2$ which is just setting $c=1$ if the parameters $a$ and $b$ are easier to interpret. Also, using the mean of the $x$ and $y$ values for the starting values for $a$ and $b$ might be more numerically stable if the $x$'s and $y$'s are very large or very small.
            $endgroup$
            – JimB
            2 days ago



















          4












          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but a hint on how to improve your coding by coding in a more functional style. Functional code is almost always more concise and more efficient than procedural code.



          {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};
          g[a_, b_, c_] = {a Sqrt[#1] Cos[#2], b Sqrt[#1] Sin[#2], c #1} &;
          h = Table[g[a0, b0, c0][u, v], {u, 0, 1, .05}, {v, 0, 2 π, .05}] // Catenate;





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Actually this was my first approach, but not knowing Catenate I left it. Thank you, very useful!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            yesterday











          Your Answer





          StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function () {
          return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function () {
          StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix) {
          StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
          });
          });
          }, "mathjax-editing");

          StackExchange.ready(function() {
          var channelOptions = {
          tags: "".split(" "),
          id: "387"
          };
          initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

          StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function() {
          // Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
          if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled) {
          StackExchange.using("snippets", function() {
          createEditor();
          });
          }
          else {
          createEditor();
          }
          });

          function createEditor() {
          StackExchange.prepareEditor({
          heartbeatType: 'answer',
          autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
          convertImagesToLinks: false,
          noModals: true,
          showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
          reputationToPostImages: null,
          bindNavPrevention: true,
          postfix: "",
          imageUploader: {
          brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
          contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
          allowUrls: true
          },
          onDemand: true,
          discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
          ,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
          });


          }
          });














          draft saved

          draft discarded


















          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f189887%2finterpolator-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown

























          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes








          2 Answers
          2






          active

          oldest

          votes









          active

          oldest

          votes






          active

          oldest

          votes









          5












          $begingroup$

          There are no differences in the predictions. What you have is an over-parameterized model. You have attempted to fit too many parameters. The basic model is



          $$f=a_x x^2+a_y y^2$$



          There are really only 2 parameters to fit.



          sol0 = FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.} *)
          f /. sol0 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)

          sol1 = FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104} *)
          f /. sol1 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Sometimes I think I should take a break. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Same here. You might consider just using $(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2$ which is just setting $c=1$ if the parameters $a$ and $b$ are easier to interpret. Also, using the mean of the $x$ and $y$ values for the starting values for $a$ and $b$ might be more numerically stable if the $x$'s and $y$'s are very large or very small.
            $endgroup$
            – JimB
            2 days ago
















          5












          $begingroup$

          There are no differences in the predictions. What you have is an over-parameterized model. You have attempted to fit too many parameters. The basic model is



          $$f=a_x x^2+a_y y^2$$



          There are really only 2 parameters to fit.



          sol0 = FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.} *)
          f /. sol0 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)

          sol1 = FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104} *)
          f /. sol1 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Sometimes I think I should take a break. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Same here. You might consider just using $(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2$ which is just setting $c=1$ if the parameters $a$ and $b$ are easier to interpret. Also, using the mean of the $x$ and $y$ values for the starting values for $a$ and $b$ might be more numerically stable if the $x$'s and $y$'s are very large or very small.
            $endgroup$
            – JimB
            2 days ago














          5












          5








          5





          $begingroup$

          There are no differences in the predictions. What you have is an over-parameterized model. You have attempted to fit too many parameters. The basic model is



          $$f=a_x x^2+a_y y^2$$



          There are really only 2 parameters to fit.



          sol0 = FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.} *)
          f /. sol0 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)

          sol1 = FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104} *)
          f /. sol1 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          There are no differences in the predictions. What you have is an over-parameterized model. You have attempted to fit too many parameters. The basic model is



          $$f=a_x x^2+a_y y^2$$



          There are really only 2 parameters to fit.



          sol0 = FindFit[h, f, {{a, a0}, {b, b0}, {c, c0}}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 1., b -> 2., c -> 3.} *)
          f /. sol0 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)

          sol1 = FindFit[h, f, {a, b, c}, {x, y}]
          (* {a -> 0.533886, b -> 1.06777, c -> 0.855104} *)
          f /. sol1 // Expand
          (* 3. x^2 + 0.75 y^2 *)






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          JimBJimB

          17.3k12763




          17.3k12763












          • $begingroup$
            Sometimes I think I should take a break. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Same here. You might consider just using $(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2$ which is just setting $c=1$ if the parameters $a$ and $b$ are easier to interpret. Also, using the mean of the $x$ and $y$ values for the starting values for $a$ and $b$ might be more numerically stable if the $x$'s and $y$'s are very large or very small.
            $endgroup$
            – JimB
            2 days ago


















          • $begingroup$
            Sometimes I think I should take a break. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            2 days ago






          • 1




            $begingroup$
            Same here. You might consider just using $(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2$ which is just setting $c=1$ if the parameters $a$ and $b$ are easier to interpret. Also, using the mean of the $x$ and $y$ values for the starting values for $a$ and $b$ might be more numerically stable if the $x$'s and $y$'s are very large or very small.
            $endgroup$
            – JimB
            2 days ago
















          $begingroup$
          Sometimes I think I should take a break. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
          $endgroup$
          – TeM
          2 days ago




          $begingroup$
          Sometimes I think I should take a break. Thank you so much for opening my eyes!
          $endgroup$
          – TeM
          2 days ago




          1




          1




          $begingroup$
          Same here. You might consider just using $(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2$ which is just setting $c=1$ if the parameters $a$ and $b$ are easier to interpret. Also, using the mean of the $x$ and $y$ values for the starting values for $a$ and $b$ might be more numerically stable if the $x$'s and $y$'s are very large or very small.
          $endgroup$
          – JimB
          2 days ago




          $begingroup$
          Same here. You might consider just using $(x/a)^2 + (y/b)^2$ which is just setting $c=1$ if the parameters $a$ and $b$ are easier to interpret. Also, using the mean of the $x$ and $y$ values for the starting values for $a$ and $b$ might be more numerically stable if the $x$'s and $y$'s are very large or very small.
          $endgroup$
          – JimB
          2 days ago











          4












          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but a hint on how to improve your coding by coding in a more functional style. Functional code is almost always more concise and more efficient than procedural code.



          {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};
          g[a_, b_, c_] = {a Sqrt[#1] Cos[#2], b Sqrt[#1] Sin[#2], c #1} &;
          h = Table[g[a0, b0, c0][u, v], {u, 0, 1, .05}, {v, 0, 2 π, .05}] // Catenate;





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Actually this was my first approach, but not knowing Catenate I left it. Thank you, very useful!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            yesterday
















          4












          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but a hint on how to improve your coding by coding in a more functional style. Functional code is almost always more concise and more efficient than procedural code.



          {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};
          g[a_, b_, c_] = {a Sqrt[#1] Cos[#2], b Sqrt[#1] Sin[#2], c #1} &;
          h = Table[g[a0, b0, c0][u, v], {u, 0, 1, .05}, {v, 0, 2 π, .05}] // Catenate;





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$













          • $begingroup$
            Actually this was my first approach, but not knowing Catenate I left it. Thank you, very useful!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            yesterday














          4












          4








          4





          $begingroup$

          This is not an answer, but a hint on how to improve your coding by coding in a more functional style. Functional code is almost always more concise and more efficient than procedural code.



          {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};
          g[a_, b_, c_] = {a Sqrt[#1] Cos[#2], b Sqrt[#1] Sin[#2], c #1} &;
          h = Table[g[a0, b0, c0][u, v], {u, 0, 1, .05}, {v, 0, 2 π, .05}] // Catenate;





          share|improve this answer









          $endgroup$



          This is not an answer, but a hint on how to improve your coding by coding in a more functional style. Functional code is almost always more concise and more efficient than procedural code.



          {a0, b0, c0} = {1, 2, 3};
          g[a_, b_, c_] = {a Sqrt[#1] Cos[#2], b Sqrt[#1] Sin[#2], c #1} &;
          h = Table[g[a0, b0, c0][u, v], {u, 0, 1, .05}, {v, 0, 2 π, .05}] // Catenate;






          share|improve this answer












          share|improve this answer



          share|improve this answer










          answered 2 days ago









          m_goldbergm_goldberg

          85k872196




          85k872196












          • $begingroup$
            Actually this was my first approach, but not knowing Catenate I left it. Thank you, very useful!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            yesterday


















          • $begingroup$
            Actually this was my first approach, but not knowing Catenate I left it. Thank you, very useful!
            $endgroup$
            – TeM
            yesterday
















          $begingroup$
          Actually this was my first approach, but not knowing Catenate I left it. Thank you, very useful!
          $endgroup$
          – TeM
          yesterday




          $begingroup$
          Actually this was my first approach, but not knowing Catenate I left it. Thank you, very useful!
          $endgroup$
          – TeM
          yesterday


















          draft saved

          draft discarded




















































          Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematica Stack Exchange!


          • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

          But avoid



          • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

          • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.


          Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


          To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




          draft saved


          draft discarded














          StackExchange.ready(
          function () {
          StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmathematica.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f189887%2finterpolator-surface%23new-answer', 'question_page');
          }
          );

          Post as a guest















          Required, but never shown





















































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown

































          Required, but never shown














          Required, but never shown












          Required, but never shown







          Required, but never shown







          Popular posts from this blog

          If I really need a card on my start hand, how many mulligans make sense? [duplicate]

          Alcedinidae

          Can an atomic nucleus contain both particles and antiparticles? [duplicate]