Auto-suggest helps you quickly narrow down your search results by suggesting possible matches as you type.

- Discussion Forums
- :
- Most Active Software Boards
- :
- LabWindows/CVI
- :
- Gaussian hypergeometric function 2F1(a,b;c;z)

Topic Options

- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Mark Topic as New
- Mark Topic as Read
- Float this Topic to the Top
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Printer Friendly Page

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-09-2010 02:29 AM

Hi,

this is a somewhat specific question

I was very happy when I realized that the Advanced Analysis Library of CVI provides the Gaussian or ordinary hypergeometric function _{2}*F*_{1}(*a*,*b*;*c*;*z*), GaussHG.

Unfortunately I have not been able to get the expected results, so I have to assume that I am doing something wrong and I would be grateful for assistance.

Here is the simple code trying to calculate the function

for ( index = 0;

index <= 1000;

index ++ )

{

x [ index ] = -10.0 + index * 0.0108;

y_1 [ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ], 0.5, 2.0, 1.5 );

}

The first 833 elements of the y_1 array yield NaNs, the following numbers are oscillating in the range from +0.57 ... +3.29

Here is what I would have expected, using the online function plotter from Wolfram Research:

Help is very much appreciated!

Thanks,

Wolfgang

Solved! Go to Solution.

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-10-2010 02:21 AM

Hello NI,

I have added some extra data to assist you in calrifying this issue, the data calculated by CVI are depeicted here:

As you can see, the function works reasonably only for not too negative x values. I would appreciate it a lot if this behaviour could be confirmed and fixed as soon as possible - I really need this function and do not want to implement it myself.

Thanks!

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-13-2010 01:25 AM

Hi,

for easier reproducing the issue I am attaching a simple demo project - would be nice to receive some feedback

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-14-2010 12:51 AM

Hi Wolfgang,

I think this is a bug.

Thanks a lot for reporting this to us!

Joyce

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-14-2010 12:56 AM

Hi JoyceXe,

Thank you for addressing this topic. Sorry for being impatient this time but I need this function **urgently**. Is there a chance that you might provide a fix prior to CVI2010?? Otherwise I would need to implement it myself and obviously I'd like to avoid that... So please keep me updated about the progress with this issue. Thanks again,

Wolfgang

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-15-2010 04:58 AM - edited 09-15-2010 05:07 AM

Hi Wolfgang,

We have reported this issue as a bug. For a quick workaround, I suggest you take advantage of the following transform:

F(a,b,c,x) = F(a, c - b, c, x/(x-1)) / (1-x)^a, which could map x from (-Inf, 0] to [0,1).

You could revise the original code a bit if performance is not a concern:

for ( index = 0;index <= 1000;index ++ )

{

x [ index ] = -10.0 + index * 0.0108;

if(x[ index ]>=0)

y_1 [ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ], 0.5, 2.0, 1.5 );

else //use the transform to map negative x value to [0,1)

y_1[ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ] / (x [ index ] - 1.0), 0.5, -0.5, 1.5 ) / pow(1.0-x [ index ], 0.5);

}

for ( index = 0;index <= 1000;index ++ )

{

x [ index ] = -10.0 + index * 0.0108;

if(x[ index ]>=0)

y_1 [ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ], 0.5, 2.0, 1.5 );

else //use the transform to map negative x value to [0,1)

y_1[ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ] / (x [ index ] - 1.0), 0.5, -0.5, 1.5 ) / pow(1.0-x [ index ], 0.5);

}

Hope this workaround could help. Please feel free to let us know if you have any more questions, thanks!

Arthur

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-15-2010 05:05 AM

Hi Wolfgang,

We have reported this issue as a bug. For a quick workaround, I suggest you take advantage of the following transform:

F(a,b,c,x) = F(a, c - b, c, x/(x-1)) / (1-x)^a, which could map x from (-Inf, 0] to [0,1).

You could revise the original code a bit if performance is not a concern:

for ( index = 0;index <= 1000;index ++ )

{

x [ index ] = -10.0 + index * 0.0108;

if(x[ index ]>=0)

y_1 [ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ], 0.5, 2.0, 1.5 );

else //use the transform to map negative x value to [0,1)

y_1[ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ] / (x [ index ] - 1.0), 0.5, -0.5, 1.5 ) / pow(1.0-x [ index ], 0.5);

}

for ( index = 0;index <= 1000;index ++ )

{

x [ index ] = -10.0 + index * 0.0108;

if(x[ index ]>=0)

y_1 [ index ] = GaussHG ( x [ index ], 0.5, 2.0, 1.5 );

else //use the transform to map negative x value to [0,1)

}

Hope this workaround could help. Please feel free to let us know if you have any more questions, thanks!

Arthur

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-15-2010 06:52 AM

Hi Arthur,

Well, this workaround was a very nice surprise, thanks! Unfortunately, it is not yet fully working as expected, I got the following result:

As you can see, for negative x values the function now works as expected, but for x values from 0... ~0.4 still NaN are the result...

Of course, I could first probe x and then choose one of the two functions, the original or the transform, but this would make things quite slow (still much better than not working).

Thanks again,

Wolfgang

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-15-2010 10:55 AM

Hi Wolfgang,

I guess you were using the transform when x>=0. However, we only use the transform when x is negative to avoid the bug(because x/(x-1) is positive). So the snippet I pasted actually probe x first and then choose between the original and the transform. I am sorry that will reduce the performance. But it is a quick workaround to get the correct result. We will try to investigate if there is other workaround to get both correctness and performance. Thanks!

Arthur

- Mark as New
- Bookmark
- Subscribe
- Subscribe to RSS Feed
- Highlight
- Email to a Friend
- Report to a Moderator

09-28-2010 06:42 AM

Hi Arthur,

sorry for the late reply, I just returned from travel.

If I got you right you suggested using the original function for x=0 and positive x values. To me it seems that this approach does not give correct results.

For example, y=GaussHG (0.0, 0.5, 2.0, 1.5) returns y=8.948603854199588E-1, while I would have expected the result to be y=1.0, see here.

Accordingly, the function is not continuous at x=0, see the figure below:

Did I miss something? The above figure has been calculated according to your code snippet.

Thanks,

Wolfgang