I understand. But why don't you just pass 35 parameters to the library instead of passing 35 + a 'fixed' parameter?
On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 21:55 Kaushik Matia <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi Federico, > > your understanding is correct. The problem is for 35 parameters. > The 36th parameter is just a constant given the other 35. > > I pass 36 parameter to the library and I am asking it to hold the 36th > parameter fixed (by passing "upper bound" = "lower bound" = "guess 36th > parameter guess value"). > > This should make the problem a 35 parameter problem to the library and it > should not fail. > So that is my confusion. Why is the library failing when I try to call > the library this way. > > When I pass "n+m" parameters and fix "m" of the parameter should the > library not try to optimize my function on the "n" parameter that it is > allowed to move around? > > Best > > . > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 26, 2016 at 2:00 PM, federico vaggi <[email protected]> > wrote: > >> Unless I wildly misunderstood, doesn't your problem reduce to 35 >> parameters? The 36th parameter is just a constant, given the other 35. >> >> On Fri, 26 Feb 2016 at 18:00 <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >>> Send NLopt-discuss mailing list submissions to >>> [email protected] >>> >>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit >>> http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nlopt-discuss >>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to >>> [email protected] >>> >>> You can reach the person managing the list at >>> [email protected] >>> >>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific >>> than "Re: Contents of NLopt-discuss digest..." >>> >>> >>> Today's Topics: >>> >>> 1. Fixing a parameter causing failure. (Kaushik Matia) >>> >>> >>> ---------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> >>> Message: 1 >>> Date: Thu, 25 Feb 2016 15:28:17 -0500 >>> From: Kaushik Matia <[email protected]> >>> To: [email protected] >>> Subject: [NLopt-discuss] Fixing a parameter causing failure. >>> Message-ID: >>> < >>> caoui8dxs+orltchiytxmtzyjmpnh_c2gp7c0ctpjgqbhqn0...@mail.gmail.com> >>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" >>> >>> Hi, >>> >>> I have optimization problem with 36 parameters. I have a equality >>> constraint where the last parameter is equal to the sum of the others >>> i.e. >>> x_36 =(x_1+...+x_35). >>> >>> I try to optimize as follows: >>> >>> 1) I set up problem with 36 parameters. >>> 2) put lowerbound = upperbound =guess param for the 36th parameter with >>> the >>> intention to fix it from changing. >>> 3) in my objective function valuation i just compute x_36 as given above >>> and use it for function evaluation. >>> >>> When I try to use algorithm COBYLA or Isres I get a failure. >>> >>> The error happens inside static double elimdim_func() at the line >>> >>> val = d->f(); >>> >>> Essential the function pointer is null and the code breaks. >>> >>> May I please request someone to point out what I may be doing wrong >>> >>> Best >>> -------------- next part -------------- >>> An HTML attachment was scrubbed... >>> URL: < >>> http://ab-initio.mit.edu/pipermail/nlopt-discuss/attachments/20160225/8f4b7130/attachment-0001.html >>> > >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> Subject: Digest Footer >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> NLopt-discuss mailing list >>> [email protected] >>> http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nlopt-discuss >>> >>> >>> ------------------------------ >>> >>> End of NLopt-discuss Digest, Vol 75, Issue 4 >>> ******************************************** >>> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> NLopt-discuss mailing list >> [email protected] >> http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nlopt-discuss >> >> >
_______________________________________________ NLopt-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://ab-initio.mit.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/nlopt-discuss
