Lec 18 | MIT 6.00 Introduction to Computer Science and Programming, Fall 2008

OPERATOR: The following content
is provided under a Creative Commons license. Your support helps MIT
OpenCourseWare continue to offer high quality educational
resources for free. To make a donation or view
additional materials from hundreds of MIT courses, visit
MIT OpenCourseWare at ocw.mit.edu. PROFESSOR: You’ll recall, at
least some of you will recall, that last time we ended up
looking at a simulation of a drunken university student
wandering randomly in a field. I’m going to return to that. Before I get to the interesting
part, I do want to call your attention to something
that some people seemed a little bit confused
by last time. So you remember that
we had this thing called perform trial. And the way we basically tested
the drunk, what would happen, is we would call this,
passing in a time, the number of steps, the amount of time
that the drunk was wondering, and the field. And there was just 1 line, that
I blazed past, probably too quickly. So what that line is saying, is
we, from the field, we’re going to call the method get
drunk, which is going to return us a drunk. And then we’re going to call
the move method for that drunk, passing the field
as an argument. Now the question is, what would
have happened if I had left off these parentheses? There. A volunteer? What would, we will do the
experiment in a minute. And by the way, I want to
emphasize the importance of experimentation. I was kind of surprised, for
example, to get email from people saying, well, what was
the correct answer to question 3 on the quiz? And my sort of response
was, why don’t you type it and find out? When in doubt, run
the experiment. So, what’s going to happen, what
would have happened, had I failed to type that
pair of parentheses? Anybody? Well, what is, get drunk? It is a method. And remember, in Python,
methods, like classes, are themselves objects. So get drunk would have a
returned an object which was a method, and then, well,
let’s try it. And the error message
will tell us everything we need to know. Function has no attribute
move. Sure enough, the method does
not have an attribute move. The instance of the class
has the attribute. And so what those parentheses
did, was tell me to invoke the method get drunk, so now instead
of that being the method itself, it’s the result
returned by the method. Which is an instance of class
drunk, and that instance has an attribute move, which
is itself a method. This is a very common
programming paradigm, and it’s important to sort of lock into
your heads, the distinction between the method and an
invocation of the method. Because you can write either,
and sometimes you won’t get an error message, you’ll just
get the wrong answer. And that’s kind of bad. That make sense to everybody? Does it not make sense to
anybody, maybe is the question I should ask? All right, we’ll go on, and
we’ll see more examples of this kind of thing. Now last week, I ran this
several times to see what would happen, and we saw that
in fact contrary to everyone’s, most everyone’s,
expectation, the longer we ran the simulation, the further
the drunk was from the starting point. And we saw that by plotting how
far the drunk was after each time unit. We ran it several times, we
got different answers. And at that point we should ask
ourselves, is that really the way to go about answering
the original question? Which was, how far should we
expect the drunk to be? The answer is no. I don’t want to sit there at
the keyboard typing in 400 examples and then, in my head,
trying to figure out what’s quote, typical, unquote. Instead, I need to organize my
simulation so that it runs a number of trials for me and
summarizes the results. All the simulations we’re going
to look at it, in fact almost all the simulations
anyone will ever write, sort of, have the same kind
of structure. We start with an inner loop
that simulates one trial. That’s what we have here, right,
we have happen to have a function. So when I say inner loop, what I
mean is, not that I’ll write a program a bunch of nested
loops, but that I’ll write a program with some function
calls, and down at sort of the bottom of the stack will
be perform trial. Which stimulates one trial
of some number of seconds, in this case. And then I’ll quote, enclose,
unquote the inner loop in another loop that conducts an
appropriate number of trials. Now a little bit later in the
term, we’ll get to the question of, how do we know what
an appropriate number is? For today, we’ll just
say, a lot. And we’ll talk about that
a little bit more. And then finally, what we want
to do, is calculate and present some relevant statistics
about the trials. And we’ll talk about
what’s relevant. I want to emphasize today the
presentation of them. Last time we looked at a graph,
which I think you’ll all agree, was a lot prettier
to look at an array of, say, 1000 numbers. All right. So now, on your handout and on
the screen, you’ll see the way we’ve done this. So perform trial, we’ve already
seen, so we know what the inner loop looks like. We can ignore first test, that
was just my taking the code that I had in line last time and
putting it in a function. And now what you’ll see in the
handout is perform sim and answer question. So, let’s look it those. So perform sim, sim for
simulation, takes the amount of time, the number of steps
for each trial, plus the number of trials. It starts with an empty list,
dist short for distances here, saying so far we haven’t run any
trials, we don’t know what any of the distances are. And then for trial in range
number of trials, it creates a drunk, and I’m putting the trial
as part of the drunk’s name, just so we can
make sure that the drunks are all different. Then I’m going to create a field
with that drunk in it at location 0,0. And then I’m going to call
perform trial with the time in that field to get
the distances. What does perform
trial return? We looked at it earlier. What is perform trial
returning? Somebody? Surely someone can figure
this one out. I have a whole new bag of candy
here, post-Halloween. What kind of thing
is it returning? Is it returning a number? If you think it’s returning a
number, oh, ok, you gonna tell me what kind of thing it’s
returning, please? A list, thank you. And it’s a list of what? I’m giving you the candy on
spec, assuming you’ll give me the right answer. List of distances, exactly. So how far way it is after
each time step? This is exactly the list that
we graphed last time. So perform sim will get that
list and append it to the list. So dist list will be a
list of lists, each element will be a list of distances,
right? OK, so that’s good. And that’s now step 2. In some sense, all of this is
irrelevant to the actual question we started with,
in some sense. This is just the structure. Then I’m going to write a
function called answer question, or ans quest, designed
to actually address the original question. So it, too, is going to
create a list. This is a list called means. Then it’s going to call perform
sim, to get this list of lists, then it will go
through that and calculate the means and create a
list of means. And then it will plot it, and
we’ll get to, before this lecture’s over, how the
plotting works. So I’m following exactly
that structure here. It calls this function, which
runs an appropriate number of trials by calling that function,
and then we’ll calculate and present
some statistics. So now let’s run it. All right, so what
have I done? I typed an inadvertent chara —
ah, yes, I typed an s which I didn’t intend to type. It’s going to take a little
while, it’s loading Pylab. Now it’s running
the simulation. All right, and here’s
a picture. So, when we ran it, let’s look
at the code for a minute here, what we can see is at the
bottom, I called ans quest, saying each trial should be 500
steps, and run 100 trials. And then we’ll plot
this graph. Graph is lurking somewhere
in there, it is. And one of the nice things we’ll
see is, it’s kind of smooth, And we’ll come back to
this, but the fact that it’s sort of smooth makes me feel
that running 100 trials might actually be enough to give
me a consistent answer. You know, if it had been
bouncing up and down as we went, then we’d say, jeez,
no trend here. Seeing a relatively smooth trend
makes me feel somewhat comfortable that we’re
actually getting an appropriate answer. And that if I were to run 500
trials, the line would be smoother, but it would look
kind of the same. Because it doesn’t look like
it’s moving here, in arbitrary directions large amounts. It’s not like the
stock market. Should I be happy? I’ve sort of done what I wanted,
I kind of I think I have an answer now, which is 500
steps, it should be four and a half units away
from the origin. What do you think? Who think this is the
right answer? So who thinks it’s a wrong
answer, raise your hand? All right, TAs, what
do you guys think? Putting you on the spot. Right answer or wrong answer? They think it’s right. Well, shame on them. Let’s remember, rack our brains
to a week ago, when we ran a bunch of individual
tests. And let’s see what we
get if we do that. And the point here is, it’s
always good to check. My recollection, when I looked
at this, was that something was amiss. Because I kind of remember, when
I ran the test last time, we were more like 40 away
than four away. Well all right, let’s try it. We’ll, sometimes happens, all
right, I’m going to have to restart Idol here, just, as you
all, at least all who use Macintoshes know, this happens
sometimes, it’s not catastrophic. Sigh. So this reminds me
of the old joke. That a computer scientist, a
mechanical engineer, were riding in a car and the car
stalled, stopped running. And the mechanical engineer said
I know what to do, let’s go out and check
the carburetor, and look at the engine. The computer scientist
said, no that’s the wrong thing to do. What you ought to do is, let’s
turn off the key, get out of the car, shut the doors, open
the doors, get back in and restart it. And sure enough, it worked. So when in doubt, reboot. So, we’ll come down, we’ll do
that, and we’re going to call first test here, and see
what that gives us. And we’ll, for the moment,
ignore that. Well, look at this. We ran a bunch of Homer’s random
walks, and maybe it isn’t 40, but not even
one of them was four. So now we see is, we’ve run two
tests, and we’ve gotten inconsistent answers. Well, we don’t know which
one is wrong. We know that one of
them is wrong. We don’t even know that, maybe
we just got unlucky with these five tests. But odds are, something
is wrong, that there’s a bug here. And, we have to figure
out which one. So how would we go
about doing that? Well, I’m going to do what I
always recommend people do. Which was, find a really simple
example, One for which I actually know the answer. So what would be a good example
for which I might know the answer? Give me the simplest example of
a simulation of the random walk I could run, where you’re
confident you know what the answer is. Yeah? one step, exactly,
and what’s the answer after one step? One. She can’t catch and talk
at the same time. Exactly. So we know if we simulate it,
one, the drunk has moved in some direction, and is going
to be exactly one step from the origin. So now we can go and
see what we get. So let’s do that. And we’ll change this
to be one, and we’ll change this to be one. We’ll see what the answer is. Well. 50? Well, kind of makes me worry. 1. All right, so we see that the
simple test of Homer gives me the right answer. We don’t know it’s always the
right answer, we know it’s, at least for this 1. But we know the other
1 was just way off. Interestingly, unlike the
previous time, instead of being way too low, it’s
way too high. So that gives us some
pause for thought. And now we need to go
in and debug it. So let’s go and debug it. And seems to me the right thing
to do is to go here. Oh, boy, I’m going to have to
restart it again, not good. And we’ll put an intermediate
value. Actually, maybe we’ll do it. What would be a nice
thing to do here? We’re going to come here. Well, let’s, you know, we want
to go somewhere halfway through the program, print some
intermediate value that will give us some information. So, this might be
a good place. And, what should we print? Well, what values do you think
you should get here? Pardon? STUDENT: The total
distance so far. PROFESSOR: The total
distance so far. So that would be a good
thing to print. And what do we think
it should be? We’ll comment this 1 out since
we think that works, and just to be safe, let’s not even run
100 trials let’s, run one trial, or two trials maybe. See we get. 0 and then 2. W, 0 was sort of what we
expected the first time around, but 2? How did you get to be 2? Anyone want to see what’s
going on here? So we see, right here we
have the wrong answer. Well, maybe we should
see what things looked like before this? Is it the lists are wrong? What am I doing wrong here? I’ll bet someone can
figure this out. Pardon? STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE] PROFESSOR: Well, I’m adding
them up, fair enough. But so tot looks OK. So, all right, maybe we should
take a look at means. Right? Let’s take a look at what
that looks like. Not bad. All right, so maybe my
example’s too simple. Let’s try a little bit bigger. Hmmm — 2.5? All right, so now I know what’s
going wrong is, somehow not that I’m messing up tot,
but that I’m computing the mean incorrectly. Where am I computing the mean? They’re only two expressions
here. There’s tot, we’ve
checked that. So there must be a problem with
the divisor, that’s the only thing that’s left. Yeah? STUDENT: [INAUDIBLE] PROFESSOR: Exactly right. I should be dividing by the
length of the list. The number of things I’m adding to tot. So I just, inadvertently,
divided by, I have a list of lists. And what I really wanted
to do is, divide by the number of lists. Because I’m computing the mean
for each list, adding it to total, and then at the end I
need to divide by the number of lists who’s means I computed,
not by the length of 1 of the lists, right? So now, let’s see what
happens if we run it. Now, we get some output printed,
which I really didn’t want, but it happens. Well this looks a lot better. Right? Sure enough, it’s 1. All right, so now I’m
feeling better. I’m going to get rid of this
print statement, if we’re gonna run a more extensive test.
And now we can go back to our original question. And run it. Well, this looks a lot
more consistent with what we saw before. It says that on average, you
should be around 20. So we feel pretty
good about that. Now, just to feel even better,
I’m going to double the number of trials and see what
that tells us. And it’s still around 20. Line a little smoother. And if I where do 1000 trials
will get a little smoother, and it would still
be around 20. Maybe slightly different each
time, but consistent with what we saw before, when we ran
the other program. We can feel that we’re actually doing something useful. And so now we can conclude,
and would actually be the correct conclusion, that we know
about how far this random drunk is going to move
in 500 steps. And if you want to know how
far he would move in 1000 steps, we could try that, too. All right. What are the lessons here? One lesson is to look at
the labels on the axes. Because if we just looked at
it without noticing these numbers, it looks the same. Right? This doesn’t look any different,
in some sense, than when the numbers were four. So you can’t just look at the
shape of the curve, you have to look at the values. So what does that tell me? It tells me that a responsible
person will always label the axes. As I have done here, not only
giving you the numbers, but telling you it’s the distance. I hate it when I look at graphs
and I have to guess what the x- and y- axes are. Here it says time versus
distance, and you also notice I put a title on it. So there’s a point there. And look, when you’re
doing it. Ask if the answer make sense. One of the things we’ll see as
we go on, is you can get all your statistics right, and still
get the wrong answer because of a consistent bug. And so always just say, do I
believe it, or is this so counterintuitive that
I’m suspicious? And as part of that ask, is it consistent with other evidence? In this case we had the evidence
of watching an individual walk. Now those two things were not
consistent, don’t know which is wrong, but it must
be one of them. And then the final point I
wanted to make, is that you can be pretty systematic about
debugging, And in particular, debug with a simple example. Right, instead of trying to
debug 500 steps and 100 trials, I said, all right, let’s
look at one step and four trials, five trials. OK, where in my head I knew what
it should look like, and then I could check it. All right. Jumping up a level or three
of abstraction now. What we’ve done, is we’ve
introduced the notion of a random walk in the context of
a pretty contrived example. But in fact, it’s worth knowing
that random walks are used all over the place to solve
real problems, deal with real phenomena. So for example, if you look
at something like Brownian motion, which can be used to
model the path traced by a molecule as it travels
in a liquid or a gas. Typically, people who do that
model it using a random walk. And, depending upon, say the
density of the gas or the liquid, the size of the
molecules, they change parameters in the simulation,
how far it, say, goes in each unit time and things
like that. But they use a random walk
to try and model what will really happened. People have attempted, for
several hundred years now, to use, well, maybe a 150 years,
to use random walks to model the stock market. There was a very famous book
called A Random Walk Down Wall Street, that argued that things
happened as a, random walk was a good way
to model things. There’s a lot of evidence that
says that’s wrong, but people continue to attempt to do it. They use it a lot
in biology to do things like model kinetics. So, the kinetics of a protein,
DNA strand exchange, things of that nature. A separation of macro-molecules,
the movement of microorganisms all of those
things are done in biology. And do that. People use it to model
evolution. They look at mutations as
kind of a random event. So, we’ll come back to this, but
random walks are used over and over and over again in the
sciences, the social sciences and therefore a very useful
thing to notice about. All right, we’re going
to come back to that. We’re going to even come back
to our drunken student and look at other kinds of random
walks other than the kind we just looked at. Before I do that, though, I
wanted back up and take the magic out of plotting. So we’ve gone from the sublime,
of what random walks are good for, to in some sense
the ridiculous, the actual syntax for plotting things. And maybe it’s not ridiculous,
but it’s boring. But you need it, so
let’s look at it. So we’re doing this using a
package called Pylab, which is in itself built on a package
called Pylab, either pronounced num p or num pi,
you can choose your pronunciation as you prefer. This basically gives you a lot
of operations on numbers, numbered things, and on top of
that, someone bill Pylab which is designed to provide a Python
interface to a lot of the functionality you
get in Matlab. And in particular, we’re going
to be using today the plotting functionality that comes with
Matlab, or the version of it. So we’re going to say, from
Pylab import star, that’s just so I don’t have to type Pylab
dot plot every time. And I’m going import
random which we’re going to use later. So let’s look at it now. First thing we’re going to do
is plot 1, 2, 3, 4, and then 1, 2, 3, and then 5, 6, 7, 8. And then at the very bottom,
you’ll see this line show. That’s going to annoy the heck
out of you throughout the semester, the rest
of the semester. Because what happens is, Pylab
produces all these beautiful plots, and then does
not display them until you type show. So remember, at the end of every
program, kind of, the last thing you should execute
should be show. You don’t want to execute it
in the middle, because what happens in the middle is it,
in an interactive mode at least, it just stops. And displays the graphs, and
until you make the plots go away, it won’t execute
the next line. Which is why I’ve tucked the
show at the very bottom of my script here. Inevitably, you will forget
to type show. You will ask a TA, how come my
graphs aren’t appearing in the screen, and the TA will
say, did you do show? And you’ll go — but it
happens to all of us. All right, so let’s try it. See what we get. So sure enough, it’s plotted the
values 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 6, 7, 8, on the x-
and y- axis. Two things I want you
to notice here. One Is, that both plots showed
up on the same figure. Which is sometimes what you
want, and sometimes not what you want. You’ll notice that also happened
with the random walk we looked at, where when I
plotted five different walks for Homer they all showed
up superimposed on top of one another. The other thing I want you to
notice, is the x-axis runs from 0 to 3. So you might have kind of
thought, that what we would see is a 45 degree angle
on these things. But of course, Python, when
not instructed otherwise, always starts at zero. Since when we called plot, I
gave it only the y-values, it used default values for x. It was smart enough to say,
since we have four y-values, we should need four x-values,
and I’ll choose the integers 0, 1, 2, 3 as those values. Now you don’t have to do that. We could do this instead. Let’s try this one. What did I just do? Let’s comment these two out,
if we could only get there. This is highly annoying. Let’s hope it doesn’t tell
me that I have to — All right, so let’s go here. We’ll get rid of those guys,
and we’ll try this one. We’ll plot 1, 2, 3, 4
against 1, 4, 9, 16. OK? So now, it’s using 1, 2, 3,
4 as the x-axis, and the y-axis I gave it. First x then y. Now it looks a little funny,
right, you might have not expected it to look like this. You’ll notice they’re these
little inflection points here. Well, because what it’s really
doing is, I gave it a small number of points, only four. It’s found those four points,
and it’s connected them, each point by a straight line. And since the points are kind
of spread out, the line has little bumps in it. That makes sense to everyone? Now, it’s often deceptive to
plot things this way, where you think you have a continuous
function when in fact you just have a few
miscellaneous points. So let’s look at another
example. Here, what I’m going to do,
is I’ve called figure, and remember, this is Pylab dot
figure, which says, create a new figure. So instead of putting this new
curve on the same figure as the old curve, start
a new one. And furthermore, I’ve got this
obscure little thing at the end of it. After you give it the x- and
y- values, you can give it some instructions about how you
want to plot points, or anything else. In this case, what this little
string says is, each point should be represented as a red
o. r for red, o for o. I’m not asking you to remember
this, what you will discover, the good news is there’s very
good documentation on this. And so you’ll find in the
reading of pointer to plots, and it will tell you everything
you need to know, all of the wizardry and the
magic you can put in these strings that tell you
how to do things. These are basically the same
strings borrowed from Matlab. And now if we run it. Figure one is the same
figure we saw before. But figure two has not connected
the dots, not drawn a line, it’s actually planted
each, or plotted, excuse me, each point as a red circle. Now when I look at this, there’s
something that’s not very pleasing about this. That in particular, I know I
plotted four points, but it a quick glance it looks like
they’re only three. And that’s because it’s taking
this fourth point and stuck it way up there in the corner
where I missed it. It’s there. But it’s so close to the edge of
the graph that it’s kind of hard to see. So I can fix that by executing
the command axis, which tells it how far I want it to be. And this says, I want 1 axis
to go from 0 to 6, and the other 0 to 20. We’ll do that, and also to avoid
boring you, we’ll do more at the same time. We’ll put some labels
on these things. I’m going to put that the title
of the graph is going to be earnings, and that the x-axis
will be labelled days, and the y-axis will be
labelled dollars. So earnings dollars
against days. OK, now let’s see what happens
when we do this. Well, we get the same ugly
figure one as before, and now you can see figure two I’ve
moved the axes so that my graph will show up in the middle
rather than at the edges, and therefore
easier to read. I put a title in the top, and
I put labels on the axes. Every graph that I ask you to do
this course, I want you to put a title on it and to label
your axes so we know what we’re reading. Again, nothing very deep here,
this is really just syntax, just to give you an idea
of the sorts of things you can do. All right. now we get to
something a little bit more interesting. Let’s look at this code here. So far, what I’ve been passing
to the plot function for the x- and y- values are lists. In fact, what Pylab uses is
something it gets from NumPy which are not lists really,
but what it calls arrays. Now, truth be told, most
programming languages use array to mean something
quite different. But, in NumPy an array is
basically a matrix. On which we can do some
interesting things. So for example, when
I say x-axes equals array 1, 2, 3, 4. Array is a type, so array
applied to the list is just like applying float to an int. If I apply float to an int,
it turns it into a floating point number. If I apply array to a list,
it turns it into an array. Once it’s an array, as we’ll
see, we can do some very interesting things with it. Now, in addition to getting an
array by coercing a the list, which is probably the
most common way to get it, by the way. Because you build up a list in
simulations of the sort we looked at, and then you might
want to change it to an array to perform some operations
on it. You can get an array directly
with aRange. This is just like the range
function we’ve been using all term, but whereas the range
function gives you a list of ints, this gives you
an array of ints. But the nice thing about an
array is, I can perform operations on it like this. So if I say y-axis equals x-axis
raised to the third power, that’s something I can’t
do with a list. I get an error message if I try that with
a list. What that will do is, will point-wise, take
each element in the array and cube it. So the nice thing about arrays
is, you can use them to do the kinds of things you, if you
ever took a linear algebra course, you learned
about doing. You can multiply an array
times an array, You can multiply an array times
an integer. And sometimes that’s a very
convenient thing to do. It’s not what this course is
about, I don’t want to emphasize it. I just want you to know it’s
there so if in some subsequent life you want to do more
complicated manipulations, you’ll know that that’s
possible. So let’s run this and
see what we get. So the first thing to look at,
is we’ll ignore the figure for the moment. And we’ve seen that when I
printed test and I printed x-axis, they look the same,
they are the same. And in fact, I can do this
interesting thing now. Print test double
equals x-axis. You might have thought
that would return a single value, true. Instead it returns a list, where
it’s done a point-wise comparison of each element. So when we deal with arrays,
they don’t behave like lists. And you can imagine that it
might be very convenient to be able to do this. Answers the question, are all
the elements the same? Or which ones are the same? So you can imagine doing some
very clever things with these. And certainly, if you can
convert problems to vectors of this sort, you can really
perform what’s almost magical. And then when we look at the
figure, which should be tucked away somewhere here, what did
I do with the figure? Did I make it go away? Well, I think I did one of those
ugly things and made it go away again. Oh, no, there it is. All right. And sure enough here, we’re
plotting a cubic. All right. Nothing very important to
observe about any of that, other than that arrays are
really quite interesting and can be very valuable. Finally, the thing I want to
show you is that there are a lot of things we can do that are
more interesting than what we’ve done. So now I’m going to use that
random, which I brought in before, and show you that we
can plot things other than simply curves. In this case, I’m going
to plot a histogram. And what this histogram is going
to do is, I’m going to throw a pair of dice a large
number of times, and add up the sum, and see what I get. So, for die values equals 1
through 6, for i in range 10,000, a lot of dice. I’m just going to append random
choice, we’ve seen this before, of the two dice,
and their sum. And then I’m going to plot a
histogram, Pylab dot hist instead of plot, and we’ll get
something quite different. A nice little histogram showing
me the values I get, and we will come back to this
later and talk about why this is called a normal

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *