[Top][All Lists]
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lowe
From: |
David Bateman |
Subject: |
[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk |
Date: |
Wed, 24 Oct 2012 22:05:39 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0 |
Follow-up Comment #2, bug #37613 (project octave):
In fact if you replaced h0 with h you'd also have to replace trans(subs) with
subs. As for the sense of the comment, I believe I based it on the statement
in section section of the Shampine paper
We break off the computation if arguments become closer in a relative sense
than 100 times the unit roundoff eps. This is not entirely straightforward
because of the transformations: The test must be done after the variable t
used
in the formulas is transformed to the variable x given to the function f (x)
and
there are four sets of transformations.
The paper itself can be found at
http://faculty.smu.edu/shampine/rev2vadapt.pdf
and I didn't have any other reasons for this comment. However changing line
322 of quadgk to read
if (any (abs (diff (subs, [], 2) / h) < 100 * myeps))
then running "test quadgk" passes all of the tests. These tests include tests
for infinite bounds and singular integrands and so probably give a pretty
clear indication that such a change would be acceptable, even if Shampine
himself didn't recommend it. Perhaps Mathworks modified this behavior after
the inclusion of quadgk in Matlab?
D.
_______________________________________________________
Reply to this item at:
<http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?37613>
_______________________________________________
Message sent via/by Savannah
http://savannah.gnu.org/
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, anonymous, 2012/10/22
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, Marco Caliari, 2012/10/24
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk,
David Bateman <=
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, Marco Caliari, 2012/10/25
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, David Bateman, 2012/10/25
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, David Bateman, 2012/10/25
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, Marco Caliari, 2012/10/26
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, Marco Caliari, 2012/10/26
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, David Bateman, 2012/10/26
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, Marco Caliari, 2012/10/29
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, David Bateman, 2012/10/29
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, Marco Caliari, 2012/10/30
- [Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk, David Bateman, 2012/10/30