https://community.wolfram.com RSS Feed for Wolfram Community showing questions tagged with Tuning and Debugging sorted by active. https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3644908 **TL;DR** I'm looking for someone to refactor a Mathematica notebook I've got from a fellow researcher so I can use it as a reliable reference implementation. I expect it's a few hours of work for the right person. I can offer financial compensation and/or my own technical expertise. Hello Wolfram community! I hope this is the right place for this kind of request. If not, my apologies! I'm a PhD student in the final stage of my project, an attempt at closed-loop control of water jets from firefighting robots using UAV imagery as feedback. The controller design is based on the Smith predictor architecture, which requires a predictive model to compensate for the long dead time of the system. Accurately predicting the trajectory of water jets is far from trivial. One of the most promising models I could find is described in https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10694-021-01175-1. The model is formulated as a system of ordinary differential equations. I tried implementing it in Python so I can integrate it with my other components. It's almost complete, but despite several months of debugging I haven't been able to resolve the remaining issues. So I contacted the corresponding author. They confirmed some errors I found in the printed versions of the equations, and kindly provided their original Mathematica implementation. This helped, but my own implementation is still incomplete. The issues could stem from additional errors in the printed equations I/we haven't found yet, mistakes in my implementation, or differences in solver behavior (Mathematica's vs. SciPy's solve_ivp() function). Unfortunately, the notebook is hard for me to follow and differs quite a bit from the published paper (structure, variable naming, angle conventions, etc.). I've never worked with Mathematica and don't have the time nor patience to properly learn it before my deadline. The author is currently unable to provide further support, but since I'm getting more and more desperate to finish this subproject, I'm now seeking third-party help. I'm looking for someone to refactor the notebook into a clean, well-structured reference implementation. Specifically, I'd like them to - remove unused and redundant code (many expressions are duplicated) - improve structure - improve documentation - add small quality-of-life improvements if appropriate - flag any noticeable discrepancies The refactored version must reproduce the original results, in particular the figures shown in the paper. Ideally, it should make it easy to experiment with the equations and parameters. One specific goal is to verify whether the rearranged equation forms I use in Python (to match SciPy's solver interface) produce the same results as the original formulation. If you're interested, I'll obtain the author's permission and share the notebook privately so you can assess the scope before we discuss compensation. Bonus points if you have experience with physics-based simulations and are open to occasional follow-up questions :) Many thanks and regards! Merlin Stampa 2026-02-24T20:34:23Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3635801 I have a few code samples which freeze or crash my kernel on evaluation, can anybody confirm that this isn't a local issue for me? Discrete: AudioGenerator[{"Color", AudioGenerator[TimeSeries[{1}, {1}]]}] Continuous: AudioGenerator[{"Color", AudioGenerator[{"Sawtooth", .4, 5}]}] Joseph Stocke 2026-02-06T21:20:51Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3624223 The first graphic is from a notebook many years old, and the second is from the latest version of Mathematica. What's going on? Is this a known regression in functionality? ![enter image description here][1] ![enter image description here][2] n = 7; m = 3; dt = 2 Pi/n; dtm = 2 Pi/m; r = 1./(1 - Sin[dt/2]/Cos[dtm/2]); R = 1. r Cos[(dt + dtm)/2]/Cos[dtm/2]; ToMatrix[z_, r_] := (I/r) {{z, r^2 - z Conjugate[z]}, {1, -Conjugate[z]}}; alist = Table[ ToMatrix[r Exp[I t], r - 1], {t, dt/2, 2 Pi, dt}]; Tlist = Join[{IdentityMatrix[2]}, alist]; homography[{{a_, b_}, {c_, d_}}, z_] := (a z + b)/(c z + d); FindT[T0_, Tlist_] := MemberQ[Tlist, T_ /; Abs[homography[T, 0] - homography[T0, 0]] < 1.0*^-3]; i2 = 1; Do[i1 = i2 + 1; i2 = Length[Tlist]; Do[Scan[(T = Tlist[[i]] . #; If[! FindT[T, Tlist], Tlist = Append[Tlist, T]]) &, alist], {i, i1, i2}], {2}]; plot = Show[ Graphics[ Map[Line[ Table[z = homography[#, R Exp[I t]]; {Re[z], Im[z]}, {t, 0, 2 Pi, dt}]] &, Tlist], AspectRatio -> Automatic], Axes -> True] data = (Table[ z = homography[#1, R Exp[I t]]; {Re[z], Im[z], 0.}, {t, 0, 2 \[Pi], dt}] &) /@ Tlist; L = MeshRegion[Join @@ Most /@ data, Line[Join @@ (Partition[#1, 2, 1, 1] &) /@ Partition[Range[7 Length[data]], 7]]]; f = RegionDistance[L]; \[Theta]1 = 0.08; \[Theta]2 = 0.01; z =. R1 = ImplicitRegion[ f[{x, y, z}] <= \[Theta]1, {{x, -4, 4}, {y, -4, 4}, {z, -2, 2}}]; S1 = DiscretizeRegion[R1, MaxCellMeasure -> 0.0001] [1]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=9870Untitled.png&userId=1537376 [2]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=9363Untitled2.png&userId=1537376 Eric Mockensturm 2026-01-24T22:21:35Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3561367 I calculate huge matrices (of the order of 10^4 x 10^4 or more) in C++ (because Mathematica is too slow for this...) in 80-bit (long double) and export it to 128-bit (because Mathematica can only read either 64-bit or 128-bit with BinaryReadList). I import the matrices into Mathematica because it's much easier to make graphics, convergence analysis and so on. So after having loaded them into Mathematica, the numbers have mantissas of about 50 digits (the numbers on the left after the back tick `). But because they were originally calculated only in 80-bits, 50 digits are useless. In order to load them quickly, I need to convert them into compressed text. But before doing this, I would like to reduce the numbers to 20 digits, because this is 80-bit precision. This would reduce space on disk and load them more quickly. However, SetPrecision[z,p] or N[z,p] where z is a number with a mantissa of 50 decimal digits and p=20 is the desired precision does not reduce the digits at all. If I want to reduce it to 16 digits for example, I need to set p=4 or so. Why is this? Normally, when someone talks of a number z having p precision, I understand that it has a mantissa of p decimal digits. Am I missing something? Ulrich Utiger 2025-10-16T16:26:22Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3562641 **The problem** I run Mathematica 12 from home via a Win11 VM on Proxmox. This configuration has run fine for years. Recently during an upgrade to Win11 25H2 I went to test to make sure everything was functional with a quick BenchmarkReport[] but it caused the kernel to die at Test 3, FFT. Its a very repeatable failure. Just before upgrading to 25H2 I had changed my processor type for this VM to x86-64-v3 +aes from -v2 + aes. I had issues on another vm where Win11 didnt want to upgrade with v2. I didnt originally run the processor as "host" as I am running dual E5-2699v4 Xeons, Win11 doesnt support by age despite having all the instructions needed. I have used this VM with Win10 and Win11 for years running Mathematica without issue. In the past I would use BenchmarkReport[] as a quick check of functionality after any upgrades or changes. This is the first time its failed. A quick test using ParallelTable[sin[x],{x,0,pi,10^-6}] works fine A quick test of Fourier[{1, 1, 2, 2, 1, 1, 0, 0}] works fine But a simple, Needs["Benchmark`"] BenchmarkReport[] Fails while calculating Step 3, FFT. The kernel simply die with no error message or warning. If I watch carefully with Task Manager it looks like the kernel dies, Mathematica recreates the kernel, then it dies again immediately. I also tried running this command through mathscript with -verbose but it gives me no additional details why its dying. I went back and tested some older notebooks I had. One of the first ones I tried died during a NonLinearModelFit of a PieceWise function with Sin[]s. Piecewise[{ { y0 + ( A1 Sin[ 2 \[Pi] ( x - x1)/t1] Sin[ 2 \[Pi] ( x - x2)/t2] ) + A3 Sin[2 \[Pi] (x - x3)/t3], x >= xon }, {y0, x < xon} }] This had worked in the past but now it dies just like BenchmarkReport, the kernel dies with no errors. **Fixes tried** So, I set the cpu back to v2 + aes for the vm config in proxmox but the kernel still dies. Set the cpu to Host in case its an issue with AES being passed correctly but it still dies I had Ballooning memory on so I turned it off, no change I had NUMA on so I turned it off, no change I uninstalled, reinstalled Mathematica 12.0 but it still fails I installed a demo copy of Mathematica 14.3, BenchmarkReport[] and my notebook run without issue. **System Info** Running a network version of Mathematica 12.0 with MathLM on another VM for the license. License is for 2 instances and 16 kernels. The VM is running under proxmox 8.4.14. The vm was just recently upgraded to Win11 25H2 but I am not sure when I last ran BenchmarkReport[]. I have run BenchmarkReport[] on this vm multiple times with some older flavors of win11 but I cant remember when I last ran it. I had recently installed the virtio drivers for this vm on the previous Win11 version but I hadnt run Mathematica since then. Could be a contributing factor. Proxmox has gone through a recent upgrade with a reboot of the host. I hadnt tried test Mathematica afterwards. Could be a contributing factor. The vm has been tested with cpu set to Host, x86-64-v2+aes, x86-64-v3+aes, numa on and off, ballooning on and off, with 32GB memory configured for the vm. This vm is set to get 2 processors of 8 cores each, The vm is only running microsoft virtual graphic drivers and is only accessed via remote desktop, not SPICE. As far as I can tell Win11 is working as expected. I am considering a fresh install of Win11 if no better ideas surface. The host system is dual E5-2699 v4 with 512GB. The host system runs a mix of vms and containers. **Summary** I know this is probably a very weird edge case of using a VM with such an old version of Mathematica. The kernel dying does seem to fail for more than just Benchmark so its most likely not a single package responsible. The failure is limited to Mathematica 12 as far as I can tell. Just wanted to figure this our before I start embarking on a bunch of calculations. Any thoughts are appreciated. Mike Morrell 2025-10-19T19:10:08Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3558524 Hi everyone, I have a Mathematica program that takes an extremely long time to process and still doesn’t produce any result, even after more than 15 hours of runtime. Here are my system details: Supercomputer with 256 GB RAM 8 cores, each running at 3.7 GHz Mathematica uses all CPU cores but only around 3–4 GB of RAM Despite this, the computation doesn’t seem to progress efficiently. I’d like to understand: Why is Mathematica using all the CPU but so little memory? What are the best practices to optimize my code (e.g., parallelization, memory management, symbolic vs numeric evaluation)? How can I identify the performance bottlenecks in my code? If helpful, I can share a simplified version of my code to analyze where the slowdown occurs. Any advice on improving speed or diagnosing such behavior would be greatly appreciated! Thanks in advance! This is my code. also i use vs 12. &[Wolfram Notebook][1] [1]: https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/2a2ecbd9-090f-45c0-915d-15d5e2dd9261 Reza rho 2025-10-09T07:06:05Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3531785 Wolfram Video Processing is too slow in real-life situations. I love using Wolfram Language for real-life applications, and I appreciate that Wolfram has recently focused on first-class video functionality. However, it’s a pity that while it works fine for demonstrations, it is far too slow for practical use. For example, when I use CapCut to edit and render a 5-minute video, it takes only a few seconds. But in Wolfram Mathematica, the same process is extremely slow. For a simple 7-minute video (with only text overlay), Wolfram takes 6 minutes just to render. That is unusable! Imagine processing a **30-minute video—it could take 45 minutes**, while CapCut would finish in under a minute. ![enter image description here][1] I have also tried adjusting encoders, frame rates, and other settings, but it didn’t help. Can someone suggest a solution? Thank you very much. [1]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=1755454340--0Codec.nb_-Wolfram.jpg&userId=138946 Jaques Secretin 2025-08-17T18:15:27Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3532836 This code runs for a long time without results in Mathematica. What is the reason? FunctionRange[{Abs[x1 + y1 - 1]/Sqrt[2] + Abs[x2 + y2 - 1]/Sqrt[2], x1^2 + y1^2 == 1, x2^2 + y2^2 == 1, x1 x2 + y1 y2 == 1/2}, {x1, y1, x2, y2}, k] Wen Dao 2025-08-19T10:38:02Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/2492644 I am still unexperienced in WL, but I have come to a point that I can create some programs that are getting a tiny bit more complex (still quite modest though) :-) But I often run into very basic things I just can't figure out. So I hope someone can direct me a bit : 1. Inside a Dynamic, I get the grey small 'x' if I do not 'close a line with the semicolon (;). That is annoying, because the script stops working as planned (as it interpretes the 'x' as a multiply sign) in an unintended way. 2. In a Dynamic[ xxxxxx ], why does the last line have to be WITHOUT semicolon (;) ? 3. How can I best view the values of the variables I use inside Dynamic? I did that by leaving out the semi-colon, as to output the result, but as I mentioned, that does not work inside a Dynamic script. Sometimes though this works and the annoying grey 'x' does not appear. can I switch off the automatic behavior of 'filling in a x' for me when the are spaces? I can myself put '*' if I want a multiplication to occur. 4. I am used to a debugger, where I can set Breakpoints and a Variable Watcher. How is serious debugging being done in WL? B. Cornas 2022-03-18T18:09:39Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3475327 Hi, Using Mathematica 14.2 I am trying to run the following built in function: CommunityGraphPlot I'm getting the following error message: ConvexHullMesh::affind When trying to run examples provided in the Help page of that function: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/ref/CommunityGraphPlot.html I'm getting the same error: ConvexHullMesh::affind: {{1.28234,1.35493},{1.28234,1.57998},{1.50739,1.35493},{1.50739,1.57998},{0.561602,-0.0244771},<<41>>,{0.499273,2.02323},{0.499273,2.24828},{0.0656264,1.40944},{0.0656264,1.63449},<<18>>} should be a list of 3 or more affinely independent points. The same function runs OK on Mathematica version 12 Any idea what could be the problem and how to fix it? Ehud Fonio 2025-06-05T16:22:58Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3472860 My Mathematica code is taking too much time to compute. I don't know what the issue is. Can anyone suggest any changes that I need to make in order for the code to work? Ananth Krishna V &[Wolfram Notebook][1] [1]: https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/cec6225e-eaf9-40c5-bb9c-428f578a3931 Ananth Krishna 2025-06-02T12:57:50Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3461424 Hi, guys I would like to know how to speed up numerical calculations of the inverse method in a game theoretical model Thank you very much! Clear["`*"]; (*Parameter Definition*)a = 10; c = {1, 2, 3, 8}; Kvals = {4, 4, 2, 1}; (*The fourth person's best response*) q4Opt[q1_?NumericQ, q2_?NumericQ, q3_?NumericQ] := Module[{q4}, q4 /. FindMaximum[{(a - (q1 + q2 + q3 + q4)) q4 - c[[4]] q4, 0 <= q4 <= Kvals[[4]]}, {q4, 5}][[2]]] (*The third person's best response*) q3Opt[q1_?NumericQ, q2_?NumericQ] := Module[{q3}, q3 /. FindMaximum[{(a - (q1 + q2 + q3 + q4Opt[q1, q2, q3])) q3 - c[[3]] q3, 0 <= q3 <= Kvals[[3]]}, {q3, 10}][[2]]] (*The second person's best response*) q2Opt[q1_?NumericQ] := Module[{q2}, q2 /. FindMaximum[{(a - (q1 + q2 + q3Opt[q1, q2] + q4Opt[q1, q2, q3Opt[q1, q2]])) q2 - c[[2]] q2, 0 <= q2 <= Kvals[[2]]}, {q2, 12.5}][[2]]] (*The first person's best decision*) q1Opt = Module[{q1}, q1 /. FindMaximum[{(a - (q1 + q2Opt[q1] + q3Opt[q1, q2Opt[q1]] + q4Opt[q1, q2Opt[q1], q3Opt[q1, q2Opt[q1]]])) q1 - c[[1]] q1, 0 <= q1 <= Kvals[[1]]}, {q1, 15}][[2]]]; (*Output*) Print["Optimal decisions:"]; Print["q1 = ", q1Opt]; q2Val = q2Opt[q1Opt]; Print["q2 = ", q2Val]; q3Val = q3Opt[q1Opt, q2Val]; Print["q3 = ", q3Val]; q4Val = q4Opt[q1Opt, q2Val, q3Val]; Print["q4 = ", q4Val]; yanshao Wang 2025-05-15T14:47:04Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3455214 Let's initialize a = Table[Random[], {1460}, {361}, {720}]; Then use some elements to form another table Table[a[[1, i, 1]], {i, 1, 100}]; // AbsoluteTiming This operation takes very little time out[] = {0.0004528, Null} But just a bit large Table (from 1 to **361**) Table[a[[1, i, 1]], {i, 1, 361}]; // AbsoluteTiming takes crazy long out[]= {67.1042, Null} What is a problem? P.S. Mathematica ver. 13.3. RAM is sufficient. Rodion Stepanov 2025-05-05T09:52:13Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3175724 I am following [this guide][1] to try to get Python working in `ExternalEvaluate`. (on Windows 11, Mathematica 13.0). So far, I have successfully installed Python (Step 1), and the Python package manager (Step 2), and the “pyzmq” package for Python (Step 3). But I get a "Missing Dependencies" error on Step 4: ![enter image description here][2] From [this post][3], I learned that this may be because the Python library path may not be in Mathematica's default Path. So I tried using `SetEnvironment`, to no avail: ![enter image description here][4] I then use `RegisterExternalEvaluator`, but still get MissingDependencies: ![enter image description here][5] And `FindExternalEvaluators["Python"]` still shows MissingDependencies. Not sure what else to try. [1]: https://reference.wolfram.com/language/workflow/ConfigurePythonForExternalEvaluate.html [2]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=Screenshot2024-05-13missingdependencies.png&userId=167076 [3]: https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/1975953 [4]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=6197Screenshot2024-05-13setEnvironment.png&userId=167076 [5]: https://community.wolfram.com//c/portal/getImageAttachment?filename=Screenshot2024-05-13register.png&userId=167076 Bryan Lettner 2024-05-13T23:50:08Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3438154 I am reading the article "[First few overtones probe the event horizon geometry][1]". I want to replicate the results of Table 1 in the above article using the analytical continuation method as mentioned in the article. However, my code doesn't run out of any results. I don't know what's wrong with it, because there is no warning message. Any suggestions would be greatly appreciated. Thanks very much. The code is as follows: M = 1/2; x = 1 - r0/r; \[Epsilon] = (2 M - r0)/r0; a0 = b0 = 0; A[r_] = 1 - \[Epsilon] (1 - x) + (a0 - \[Epsilon]) (1 - x)^2 + Al[r] (1 - x)^3; B[r_] = 1 + b0 (1 - x) + Bl[r] (1 - x)^2; Nm[r_] = Sqrt[x A[r]]; Al[r_] = 1/x ContinuedFractionK[a[n] x, 1, {n, 3}]; Bl[r_] = 1/x ContinuedFractionK[b[n] x, 1, {n, 3}]; f[r_] = Nm[r]^2/B[r]; V[r_] = Nm[r]^2 l (l + 1)/r^2 + (1 - s)/2/r D[f[r]^2, r]; eq = f[r] D[f[r] D[R[r], r], r] + (\[Omega]^2 - V[r]) R[r]; R[r_] = Exp[\[Sigma] r] x^\[Rho] (x - 1)^\[Lambda] y[r]; a[1] = 1/2; a[2] = 100; a[3] = 0; b[1] = 0; \[Epsilon] = 0; r0 = 1; fctor = Coefficient[R[r], y[r]]; eqr = eq/fctor // Simplify; eqrr = Collect[ eqr, { y[r], Derivative[1][y][r], (y^\[Prime]\[Prime])[r]}]; epeq = Series[eqrr, {r, Infinity, 3}]; epf = Solve[ Coefficient[Coefficient[epeq, y[r]], r, 0] == 0 && Coefficient[Coefficient[epeq, y[r]], r, -1] == 0, {\[Sigma], \[Lambda]}]; (*solve the parameter {\[Sigma],\[Lambda]} using the boundary \ condition at infinity*) eqnr = Collect[eqr, (-1 + r)] // Together // Simplify; eqrho = eqnr /. r -> 1; rho = Solve[Coefficient[eqrho, y[1]] == 0, \[Rho]]; (*solve the parameter \[Rho] using the boundary condition at the \ event horizon*) Equation = Simplify[eqr /. rho[[1]] /. epf[[2]]]; (*the radial function with rho[[1]] and epf[[2]] will satisfy the \ quasinormal boundary conditions*) r[z_] = First[r /. Solve[z == 1 - 1/r, r]]; CompactCoordinateEquation = Equation /. (y^\[Prime]\[Prime])[r] -> D[D[y[z], z]/D[r[z], z], z]/D[r[z], z] /. Derivative[1][y][r] -> D[y[z], z]/D[r[z], z] /. y[r] -> y[z] /. r -> r[z] // Expand; y2Coeff = Coefficient[CompactCoordinateEquation, y''[z]] // Together; y1Coeff = Coefficient[CompactCoordinateEquation, y'[z]] // Together; yCoeff = Coefficient[CompactCoordinateEquation, y[z]] // Together; fr = PolynomialGCD[y2Coeff, y1Coeff, yCoeff]; y2RCoeff = Simplify[y2Coeff/fr]; y1RCoeff = Simplify[y1Coeff/fr]; yRCoeff = Simplify[yCoeff/fr]; PolynomialQ [y2RCoeff, z] && PolynomialQ [y1RCoeff, z] && PolynomialQ [yRCoeff, z]; CoefficientListMatrix = CoefficientList[{y2RCoeff/z, y1RCoeff, z yRCoeff}, z]; z1 = 15/1000; z2 = 30/1000; z3 = 60/1000; z4 = 120/1000; z5 = 240/1000; z6 = 480/1000; z7 = 960/1000; (*midpoints for continuation*) y2RCoeffst = y2RCoeff /. z -> t + z1; y1RCoeffst = y1RCoeff /. z -> t + z1; yRCoeffst = yRCoeff /. z -> t + z1; CoefficientListMatrix1 = CoefficientList[{y2RCoeffst, t y1RCoeffst, t^2 yRCoeffst}, t]; y2RCoeffnd = y2RCoeff /. z -> t + z2; y1RCoeffnd = y1RCoeff /. z -> t + z2; yRCoeffnd = yRCoeff /. z -> t + z2; CoefficientListMatrix2 = CoefficientList[{y2RCoeffnd, t y1RCoeffnd, t^2 yRCoeffnd}, t]; y2RCoeffrd = y2RCoeff /. z -> t + z3; y1RCoeffrd = y1RCoeff /. z -> t + z3; yRCoeffrd = yRCoeff /. z -> t + z3; CoefficientListMatrix3 = CoefficientList[{y2RCoeffrd, t y1RCoeffrd, t^2 yRCoeffrd}, t]; y2RCoefffr = y2RCoeff /. z -> t + z4; y1RCoefffr = y1RCoeff /. z -> t + z4; yRCoefffr = yRCoeff /. z -> t + z4; CoefficientListMatrix4 = CoefficientList[{y2RCoefffr, t y1RCoefffr, t^2 yRCoefffr}, t]; y2RCoefffv = y2RCoeff /. z -> t + z5; y1RCoefffv = y1RCoeff /. z -> t + z5; yRCoefffv = yRCoeff /. z -> t + z5; CoefficientListMatrix5 = CoefficientList[{y2RCoefffv, t y1RCoefffv, t^2 yRCoefffv}, t]; y2RCoeffsx = y2RCoeff /. z -> t + z6; y1RCoeffsx = y1RCoeff /. z -> t + z6; yRCoeffsx = yRCoeff /. z -> t + z6; CoefficientListMatrix6 = CoefficientList[{y2RCoeffsx, t y1RCoeffsx, t^2 yRCoeffsx}, t]; y2RCoeffsh = y2RCoeff /. z -> t + z7; y1RCoeffsh = y1RCoeff /. z -> t + z7; yRCoeffsh = yRCoeff /. z -> t + z7; CoefficientListMatrix7 = CoefficientList[{y2RCoeffsh, t y1RCoeffsh, t^2 yRCoeffsh}, t]; terms = CoefficientListMatrix // Dimensions // Last; rcf = Function[{i, n}, (n + 2 - i) (n + 1 - i) CoefficientListMatrix[[1, i]] + (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix[[3, i]]]; terms1 = CoefficientListMatrix1 // Dimensions // Last; rcf1 = Function[{i, n}, (n + 3 - i) (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix1[[1, i]] + (n + 3 - i) CoefficientListMatrix1[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix1[[3, i]]]; terms2 = CoefficientListMatrix2 // Dimensions // Last; rcf2 = Function[{i, n}, (n + 3 - i) (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix2[[1, i]] + (n + 3 - i) CoefficientListMatrix2[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix2[[3, i]]]; terms3 = CoefficientListMatrix3 // Dimensions // Last; rcf3 = Function[{i, n}, (n + 3 - i) (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix3[[1, i]] + (n + 3 - i) CoefficientListMatrix3[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix3[[3, i]]]; terms4 = CoefficientListMatrix4 // Dimensions // Last; rcf4 = Function[{i, n}, (n + 3 - i) (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix4[[1, i]] + (n + 3 - i) CoefficientListMatrix4[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix4[[3, i]]]; terms5 = CoefficientListMatrix5 // Dimensions // Last; rcf5 = Function[{i, n}, (n + 3 - i) (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix5[[1, i]] + (n + 3 - i) CoefficientListMatrix5[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix5[[3, i]]]; terms6 = CoefficientListMatrix6 // Dimensions // Last; rcf6 = Function[{i, n}, (n + 3 - i) (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix6[[1, i]] + (n + 3 - i) CoefficientListMatrix6[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix6[[3, i]]]; terms7 = CoefficientListMatrix7 // Dimensions // Last; rcf7 = Function[{i, n}, (n + 3 - i) (n + 2 - i) CoefficientListMatrix7[[1, i]] + (n + 3 - i) CoefficientListMatrix7[[2, i]] + CoefficientListMatrix7[[3, i]]]; NITMAX = 100; \[Alpha] = rcf[#1, #2] &; fs = Table[ If[i > j + 2, 0, \[Alpha][i, j]], {j, 0, NITMAX}, {i, 1, 10}]; Do[fs = FoldList[ If[PossibleZeroQ[#2 // Last], #2 // Most, (Most[#2] - (#2 // Last)/(#1 // Last)* Prepend[#1 // Most, 0]) // Together] &, fs // First // Most, fs // Rest], {7}] (*Gauss elimination*) [1]: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2209.00679 Xu Xu 2025-04-02T15:09:42Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3431916 I'm doing analysis and plotting with very large arrays. Mathematica is getting bogged down. Matlab doesn't seem to have this problem or at least not to this degree. What can I do, if anything, go help speed Mathematica up? Thanks. Roger Backhus 2025-03-25T17:32:28Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3429675 I built a classifier with a Tabular dataset. I tried to use FeatureImpactPlot[c] but I get the following errors: > DistributionChart::ldata: <<1>> is not a valid dataset or list of > datasets. Part::partw Does it mean that FeatureImpactPlot cannot work with Tabular datasets? Dalila Benachenhou 2025-03-23T23:06:08Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3403358 I am working on a project that involves a high-dimensional matrix, pTA, of size 8*(p+2). I attempted to compute the sum of its negative eigenvalues using a supercomputer with 128 GB of RAM. For p=300, the computation took around 4 hours, and the memory usage reached 95%. However, I have realized that p=300 is insufficient for my research, and I need to set p=700. Given that the supercomputer struggled with p=300, I am certain it will not be able to handle p=700. I suspect that my Mathematica code is not optimized, which may be causing excessive memory usage and long computation times. Specifically, I believe that in my ParallelTable loop, Mathematica is computing all eigenvalues at each step, leading to inefficiencies. Can someone help me optimize my program to make it significantly faster and less memory-intensive, so it can handle larger values of p efficiently? &[Wolfram Notebook][1] [1]: https://www.wolframcloud.com/obj/88e46108-9791-44ae-96d4-80ce3ea4746b Reza rho 2025-03-03T10:33:36Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3362910 (*Define variables and functions*)ClearAll[t, x, alpha, s, f] t = Symbol["t", Positive -> True]; x = Symbol["x", Positive -> True]; alpha = Symbol["alpha", Positive -> True]; s = Symbol["s", Positive -> True]; n = Symbol["n", Integers -> True]; f[n_, x_, t_] := f[n][x, t]; (*Define Elzaki Transform*) elzakiTransform[func_, var_, transformVar_] := Integrate[ transformVar*func*Exp[-var/transformVar], {var, 0, Infinity}] (*Define Inverse Elzaki Transform*) inverseElzakiTransform[transformFunc_, transformVar_] := InverseLaplaceTransform[transformFunc, transformVar, t] (*Define the functional correction method*) correctionFunctional[fPrev_, x_, t_, alpha_] := Module[{delayTerm, rhs, transformedRHS, correctedTransform, correctedFunction},(*Define the delay term*) delayTerm = fPrev /. t -> t - 1; (*Define the RHS of the equation*)rhs = x^2*t - delayTerm; (*Apply Elzaki Transform to RHS*) transformedRHS = elzakiTransform[rhs, t, s]; (*Multiply by s^alpha for fractional derivative correction*) correctedTransform = s^alpha*transformedRHS; (*Apply inverse Elzaki transform to get back to time domain*) correctedFunction = inverseElzakiTransform[correctedTransform, s]; (*Add the initial condition x^2*)correctedFunction] (*Example:Initialize f_0(x,t)*) f0 = x^2; (*Compute iterations*) iterations = 3; fPrevious = f0; For[i = 1, i <= iterations, i++, fCurrent = correctionFunctional[fPrevious, x, t, alpha]; Print["Iteration ", i, ":"]; Print[TraditionalForm[fCurrent]]; fPrevious = fCurrent;] Sandeep Kumar Yadav 2025-01-23T12:19:24Z https://community.wolfram.com/groups/-/m/t/3353494 I just began experimenting with running wolframsrcipt on Macos, so far the startup time is very disappointing. I wrote the following script: #!/usr/local/bin/wolframscript Print["hello"] Running this script takes roughly five seconds, consistently. For instance, here I time the script from bash: ~/bin # time ./hello.wls hello real 0m4.809s user 0m0.173s sys 0m0.049s Here is the version info for my installation of wolframscript: ~/bin # wolframscript -info Wolfram 14.1.0 Kernel for Mac OS X x86 (64-bit) Copyright 1988-2024 Wolfram Research, Inc. Is this typical performance? A five second startup for a trivial script is a deal breaker for me. If anyone can suggest ways to make this faster, or to diagnose the reasons for the slow startup I'd love to explore them. On the other hand, if this is the expected level of performance I'll explore other avenues for my scripting needs. Thank you. David Cabana David Cabana 2025-01-08T19:05:18Z