|
From: | Ben Abbott |
Subject: | Re: I think I have found another problem in residue. |
Date: | Sun, 9 Dec 2007 13:14:39 -0500 |
On Dec 9, 2007, at 12:23 PM, Doug Stewart wrote:
Doug, I took your example and modified it slightly. Please see the attached test script. The script displays [r, p] I've run the script from Octave on Tiger/PPC and Leopard/Intel, as well as on Matlab 7.3b. In each case I get the same results (except that matlab appears to refine the roots a bit better). --------------------------- octave:30> test ans = -1.31921 + 0.00000i -5.60000 + 0.00000i -3.79336 + 8.39318i -2.99998 + 3.00009i 14.55944 + 10.64154i -3.00008 + 2.99997i 16.35697 - 13.24746i -2.99994 + 2.99994i -3.79336 - 8.39318i -2.99998 - 3.00009i 14.55944 - 10.64154i -3.00008 - 2.99997i 16.35697 + 13.24746i -2.99994 - 2.99994i 8.90592 - 0.00000i -1.00000 + 0.00000i --------------------------- The Matlab result is --------------------------- >> test ans = -1.3195 -5.6000 -3.7929 + 8.3933i -3.0000 + 3.0000i 14.5590 +10.6397i -3.0000 + 3.0000i 16.3510 -13.2508i -3.0000 + 3.0000i -3.7929 - 8.3933i -3.0000 - 3.0000i 14.5590 -10.6397i -3.0000 - 3.0000i 16.3510 +13.2508i -3.0000 - 3.0000i 8.9054 -1.0000 --------------------------- It appears to me that Octave and Matlab's residue.m script work in compatible/consistent ways ... hmmm, perhaps I've misinterpreted your point? I'm on a tight schedule today, so I don't have time for doing a derivation by hand to verify the results. My presence online will be spotty for the next few days, but will check back when I can. Ben |
test.m
Description: Binary data
[Prev in Thread] | Current Thread | [Next in Thread] |