-
Notifications
You must be signed in to change notification settings - Fork 29
New issue
Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.
By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.
Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account
modify the requisite on the function complete_state #210
Conversation
I believe we have a classic Y instead of X problem here. I am not happy with this modification. The projected space is a well defined space. The original space is a well defined space. A projected dynamical system takes states in the projected space and maps them to the projected space. All is well defined. With this PR it isn't any more, because Instead of trying to alter this situation, can you tell me what you want to actually achieve? In #209 you only loosely described your situation. Please describe exactly your situation and lets see if this situation can achieve with no changes, or simpler changes that do not change the existing API. |
I can give you a simple example:
The definition will throw an error since the input vector should be of dimension 2. Let suppose I want to match a vector EDIT: My goal is to map attractors using the original state space using the projected state space, such that
works on the original space of ds. Maybe a keyword to override the usual behavior will do? |
Why don't you just call
why don't you do I don't see why something so simple to resolve at the user level should instead become a convoluted option at the software level. You will need to provide arguments why using the projection at your end is not an option. |
I know this solution but it does not solve my problem. Next week I will
explain better what is going on in my system. It has to do with the basins
with tentacle paper.
El El vie, 19 jul 2024 a las 20:50, George Datseris <
***@***.***> escribió:
… Let suppose I want to match a vector u from the original state space
using this projection
Why don't you just call y = projection(u)?
mapper = AttractorsViaRecurrences(prods, grid); l = mapper(rand(5))
why don't you do l = mapper(projection(rand(5)) instead?
I don't see why something so simple to resolve at the user level should
instead become a convoluted option at the software level. You will need to
provide arguments why using the projection at your end is not an option.
—
Reply to this email directly, view it on GitHub
<#210 (comment)>,
or unsubscribe
<https://github.com/notifications/unsubscribe-auth/AA2VD4E6F2DPAKXG3B5QYBLZNFNV5AVCNFSM6AAAAABLEMQGV2VHI2DSMVQWIX3LMV43OSLTON2WKQ3PNVWWK3TUHMZDEMZZHEYTGNJTHE>
.
You are receiving this because you authored the thread.Message ID:
***@***.***>
|
From what you have described so far, I don't see how this doesn't solve your problem. Let's say you have a projected_sampler = () -> projection(sampler())
fs = basins_fractions(projected_mapper, projected_sampler) so yeah I will keep an eye out for a lengthier explanation next week! |
I close this PR. It breaks the API. I will describe the specifics in the opened issue. |
Following the discussion in issue #209 I propose to loosen the requisites on the function
complete_state
for theProjectedDynamicalSystem
. The only important aspect is that the functioncomplete_state
should return a valid vector on the original state space.Unfortunately I don't think we can make this check in the code if we don't know the kind of input
y
.