-1

I have two lines as follows:

line1 = [381156070.426869   18991280402.5489    37851706111.2345    56587010947.1738    75196128662.4516    93674380500.2200    112020661854.784    130232977843.840    148303323664.688    166236447369.432    184023492340.442    201671255959.833    219177990730.184]
line2 = [381152328.260590   18991096195.2797    37851417428.7922    56586627760.8760    75195661261.4112    93673851555.4860    112020130905.813    130232444040.681    148302785591.610    166235904318.277    184022946251.285    201670702121.807    219177431057.645]

If I just use plot function in mathlab, the figure is thisI need to plot the two line in one figure which could see they are different, i.e. one is above another. But the diff value of the two lines is very less than the highest value minus the lowest value, such as line1[1] << line1[12] - line1[1], so when I plot the two lines ,they are overlap each other. How could I plot these two lines in the same figure but able to see their difference?

Or is it OK to plot the diff values of the two lines(result in one line) in a paper?

EvanL00
  • 101

1 Answers1

0

Just plotting the common line emphasizes that the difference is quite small. That may be the message you want to present. Otherwise, I would plot a chart with two $y$ axes, one for the average value of the two lines and one for the difference between them and one line for each. It will take some thought to understand, but will get the point across.

Ross Millikan
  • 374,822
  • Or two charts, one above the other – Henry Mar 23 '17 at 14:26
  • Thank you for your advice, I will give it a try. My main concern is that I need to emphasis that one line is superior too another. – EvanL00 Mar 23 '17 at 14:28
  • 1
    @EvanL00 Why do you need to emphasize that one line is superior to the other? Is one line really superior to the other in any meaningful way? If so, how is its superiority meaningful? You should find out what it was you really needed to know about these functions, and try to show that. If it turns out to be embarrassing to you that the difference is so small, because sometime in the past you said it would be much larger, you will look more foolish if you try to magnify an insignificant difference than if you simply admit you were wrong before. – David K Mar 23 '17 at 14:35
  • @DavidK I understand you, thank you very much. What cause this question is that I simplify too much condition in my simulation, and somehow ending with these two lines. The basic idea of my simulation is correct, but it is the simulation too simple. At the beginning, I thought I plot their diff value is enough to show their difference, but now my teacher won't allow that kind of figure, his emphasis that two line must in the same figure, not one line that show their diff. Now I dont have time to redo a simulation, So I try to do what the teacher want and without redo a simulation. – EvanL00 Mar 24 '17 at 00:47
  • 1
    It sounds like you were supposed to find a difference of at least a few percent in your simulation, but because your simulation is not even close to correct, you have these results instead. The only legitimate way out that I can see is to redo the simulation after all. Find the mistake, fix it, run it again. Usually this takes less time than setting up the original simulation. It probably would take less time than trying to figure out a way to try to fool your teacher (who will almost surely not be fooled) into thinking you did this correctly. – David K Mar 24 '17 at 00:58
  • @davidk I'm not try to fool the teacher, just want to do as his says while keep my simulation intact(Because I think it has show what my algorithm is). Your advice is valuable indeed. – EvanL00 Mar 24 '17 at 01:36
  • @DavidK Thank you, Now I have made my mind to redo my simulation, because I find it is not that difficult to change the simulation to fit into the model. – EvanL00 Mar 24 '17 at 04:46
  • It sounds like this has been a very useful discussion. I hope you get the results you want this time and that you are rewarded for your efforts. – David K Mar 24 '17 at 05:21