[samuelson] Fixing the lecture

[bishmaybarik]

This PR brings the following changes to the lecture:

• Fixes [samuelson] Incorrect mathematical equation #530 : I have rectified the error in the mathematical equation
• Fixes [samuelson] Inconsistent usage of ($a$, $b$) and ($\alpha$, $\beta$) #456 : I have updated the lectures to use $\alpha$ and $\beta$ throughout; and this is consistent with the explanation on text as well
• Fixes [samuelson] Does not follow Quantecon style guidelines #531 : Making some more changes to follow John's suggestions
  • large code cells with lots of plotting code are typically hidden now -- see, e.g., def param_plot()
  • we might want to truncate the number of decimal points in output such as (1.5371322893124, -0.9024999999999999)
  • we shouldn't have comments in cells, such as ### Test the categorize_solution function -- if necessary, those comments should be ordinary markdown above the cells.
  • I don't think we should have plt.rcParams["figure.figsize"] = (11, 5) #set default figure size
  • the align syntax after "Notice that" and in other places seems nonstandard

Additional tasks

• run black over code-cells for PEP8 / code style compliance (line-length=80)
• adjusted bold to emphasis for non-definitions in text (style-guide)

[github-actions]

🚀 Deployed on https://68be53c45f8385c9b9f1ee2d--nostalgic-wright-5fa355.netlify.app

[bishmaybarik]

I am not sure if I should completely delete the following three lines of code:

### code to reverse-engineer a cycle
### y_t = r^t (c_1 cos(ϕ t) + c2 sin(ϕ t))
###

from this entire code chunk (it can be found here):

### code to reverse-engineer a cycle
### y_t = r^t (c_1 cos(ϕ t) + c2 sin(ϕ t))
###

def f(r, ϕ):
    """
    Takes modulus r and angle ϕ of complex number r exp(j ϕ)
    and creates ρ1 and ρ2 of characteristic polynomial for which
    r exp(j ϕ) and r exp(- j ϕ) are complex roots.

    Returns the multiplier coefficient a and the accelerator coefficient b
    that verifies those roots.
    """
    g1 = cmath.rect(r, ϕ)  # Generate two complex roots
    g2 = cmath.rect(r, -ϕ)
    ρ1 = g1 + g2           # Implied ρ1, ρ2
    ρ2 = -g1 * g2
    b = -ρ2                # Reverse-engineer a and b that validate these
    a = ρ1 - b
    return ρ1, ρ2, a, b

## Now let's use the function in an example
## Here are the example parameters

r = .95
period = 10                # Length of cycle in units of time
ϕ = 2 * math.pi/period

## Apply the function

ρ1, ρ2, a, b = f(r, ϕ)

print(f"a, b = {a}, {b}")
print(f"ρ1, ρ2 = {ρ1}, {ρ2}")

Also, there are comments inside the code cell, like:

## Now let's use the function in an example
## Here are the example parameters

which I think might be a little confusing if people miss out reading each line of the code.

---

I plan to rewrite the entire thing like this:

def f(r, ϕ):
    """
    Takes modulus r and angle ϕ of complex number r exp(j ϕ)
    and creates ρ1 and ρ2 of characteristic polynomial for which
    r exp(j ϕ) and r exp(- j ϕ) are complex roots.

    Returns the multiplier coefficient a and the accelerator coefficient b
    that verifies those roots.
    """
    g1 = cmath.rect(r, ϕ)  # Generate two complex roots
    g2 = cmath.rect(r, -ϕ)
    ρ1 = g1 + g2           # Implied ρ1, ρ2
    ρ2 = -g1 * g2
    b = -ρ2                # Reverse-engineer a and b that validate these
    a = ρ1 - b
    return ρ1, ρ2, a, b

Now let's use the function in an example. Here are the example parameters:

r = .95
period = 10                # Length of cycle in units of time
ϕ = 2 * math.pi/period

## Apply the function
ρ1, ρ2, a, b = f(r, ϕ)

print(f"a, b = {a}, {b}")
print(f"ρ1, ρ2 = {ρ1}, {ρ2}")

---

Please let me know your thoughts on this @HumphreyYang and @mmcky. Once you give your inputs, I can make the changes accordingly.

[HumphreyYang]

I am not sure if I should completely delete the following three lines of code:

### code to reverse-engineer a cycle
### y_t = r^t (c_1 cos(ϕ t) + c2 sin(ϕ t))
###

from this entire code chunk (it can be found here):

### code to reverse-engineer a cycle
### y_t = r^t (c_1 cos(ϕ t) + c2 sin(ϕ t))
###

def f(r, ϕ):
    """
    Takes modulus r and angle ϕ of complex number r exp(j ϕ)
    and creates ρ1 and ρ2 of characteristic polynomial for which
    r exp(j ϕ) and r exp(- j ϕ) are complex roots.

    Returns the multiplier coefficient a and the accelerator coefficient b
    that verifies those roots.
    """
    g1 = cmath.rect(r, ϕ)  # Generate two complex roots
    g2 = cmath.rect(r, -ϕ)
    ρ1 = g1 + g2           # Implied ρ1, ρ2
    ρ2 = -g1 * g2
    b = -ρ2                # Reverse-engineer a and b that validate these
    a = ρ1 - b
    return ρ1, ρ2, a, b

## Now let's use the function in an example
## Here are the example parameters

r = .95
period = 10                # Length of cycle in units of time
ϕ = 2 * math.pi/period

## Apply the function

ρ1, ρ2, a, b = f(r, ϕ)

print(f"a, b = {a}, {b}")
print(f"ρ1, ρ2 = {ρ1}, {ρ2}")

Also, there are comments inside the code cell, like:

## Now let's use the function in an example
## Here are the example parameters

which I think might be a little confusing if people miss out reading each line of the code.

I plan to rewrite the entire thing like this:

def f(r, ϕ):
    """
    Takes modulus r and angle ϕ of complex number r exp(j ϕ)
    and creates ρ1 and ρ2 of characteristic polynomial for which
    r exp(j ϕ) and r exp(- j ϕ) are complex roots.

    Returns the multiplier coefficient a and the accelerator coefficient b
    that verifies those roots.
    """
    g1 = cmath.rect(r, ϕ)  # Generate two complex roots
    g2 = cmath.rect(r, -ϕ)
    ρ1 = g1 + g2           # Implied ρ1, ρ2
    ρ2 = -g1 * g2
    b = -ρ2                # Reverse-engineer a and b that validate these
    a = ρ1 - b
    return ρ1, ρ2, a, b

Now let's use the function in an example. Here are the example parameters:

r = .95
period = 10                # Length of cycle in units of time
ϕ = 2 * math.pi/period

## Apply the function
ρ1, ρ2, a, b = f(r, ϕ)

print(f"a, b = {a}, {b}")
print(f"ρ1, ρ2 = {ρ1}, {ρ2}")

Please let me know your thoughts on this @HumphreyYang and @mmcky. Once you give your inputs, I can make the changes accordingly.

Looks great to me! Thanks so much!

[Copilot]

Copilot encountered an error and was unable to review this pull request. You can try again by re-requesting a review.

[github-actions]

📖 Netlify Preview Ready!

Preview URL: https://pr-561--sunny-cactus-210e3e.netlify.app (2ea34d3)

📚 Changed Lecture Pages: samuelson

[github-actions]

📖 Netlify Preview Ready!

Preview URL: https://pr-561--sunny-cactus-210e3e.netlify.app (fac1303)

📚 Changed Lecture Pages: samuelson

[github-actions]

📖 Netlify Preview Ready!

Preview URL: https://pr-561--sunny-cactus-210e3e.netlify.app (509a5de)

📚 Changed Lecture Pages: samuelson

[mmcky]

@HumphreyYang I have:

• ran black over code-cells to update the code re: code-styler
• switched bold to emphasis for non-definitions.

Do you want to do a final check and then we can merge this.

[HumphreyYang]

Hi @bishmaybarik and @mmcky,

I have made some big changes to make the code in the lecture cleaner in 5c8f323.

Some main changes are:

• Added analyze_roots and unified simulator simulate_samuelson so we can remove repetition later in the lecture.
• Simplified categorize_solution logic/messages.
• Cleaned up plotting.
• Samuelson class now uses analysis/simulator with legend/param fixes to remove repetition in the old code.
• Use unicode in the class and reduce the length of code to below 80 characters.

Please let me know what you think!

[github-actions]

📖 Netlify Preview Ready!

Preview URL: https://pr-561--sunny-cactus-210e3e.netlify.app (5c8f323)

📚 Changed Lecture Pages: samuelson

[github-actions]

📖 Netlify Preview Ready!

Preview URL: https://pr-561--sunny-cactus-210e3e.netlify.app (d4ad185)

📚 Changed Lecture Pages: samuelson

[github-actions]

📖 Netlify Preview Ready!

Preview URL: https://pr-561--sunny-cactus-210e3e.netlify.app (c0e6bc1)

📚 Changed Lecture Pages: samuelson

[mmcky]

thanks @HumphreyYang -- these are big changes and lots of reorganisation.

@bishmaybarik would you mind to read the updated version and let me know your thoughts on these changes?

[bishmaybarik]

thanks @HumphreyYang -- these are big changes and lots of reorganisation.

@bishmaybarik would you mind to read the updated version and let me know your thoughts on these changes?

Thanks for making such significant changes @HumphreyYang . Sure @mmcky , I am reviewing it right now and will let you know my thoughts on this as soon as possible.

[bishmaybarik]

thanks @HumphreyYang -- these are big changes and lots of reorganisation.
@bishmaybarik would you mind to read the updated version and let me know your thoughts on these changes?

Thanks for making such significant changes @HumphreyYang . Sure @mmcky , I am reviewing it right now and will let you know my thoughts on this as soon as possible.

These are nice changes @HumphreyYang !

@mmcky I have gone through the entire lecture, and these are some of my quick thoughts:

• The codes are now concise and to the point.
• Figures look much better. There were some alignment issues in the legends, and Humphrey's version fixes that as well.
• Reorganisation of some parts of the lecture makes the entire lecture easier to follow.

Additionally, I reviewed the mathematical calculations and verified the results produced by the code. The math appears to be correct, and upon comparing this version with the previous one, I found that the outputs are consistent.

P.S. This is a great way to write codes -- I’m learning a lot from @HumphreyYang!

[mmcky]

thanks @bishmaybarik for your proof read and review -- it is greatly appreciated.

Thanks @HumphreyYang for your updates and review as well.

@HumphreyYang let me know when you're happy for this to be merged.

[jstac]

Many thanks @bishmaybarik @HumphreyYang . Very nice work.