[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
Re: fsolve test failure
From: |
John W. Eaton |
Subject: |
Re: fsolve test failure |
Date: |
Thu, 29 Jan 2009 14:57:31 -0500 |
On 28-Jan-2009, Jaroslav Hajek wrote:
| I've uploaded a patch that relaxes the strict scaling:
|
|
| this makes the results with default settings more plausible:
| function retval = f (p)
| x = p(1);
| y = p(2);
| z = p(3);
| w = p(4);
| retval = zeros (4, 1);
| retval(1) = 3*x + 4*y + exp (z + w) - 1.007;
| retval(2) = 6*x - 4*y + exp (3*z + w) - 11;
| retval(3) = x^4 - 4*y^2 + 6*z - 8*w - 20;
| retval(4) = x^2 + 2*y^3 + z - w - 4;
| endfunction
|
| x_opt = [ -0.767297326653401, 0.590671081117440, 1.47190018629642,
| -1.52719341133957 ];
| tol = 1.0e-5;
| [x, fval, info, out] = fsolve (@f, [-1, 1, 2, -1])
| [x, fval, info, out] = fsolve (@f, [-1, 1, 2, -1], optimset
| ("Updating", "off"))
In this test, what is the purpose of tol? I think that confused me as
well as I didn't notice at first that it is unused. Was it intended
to be used in some way?
| PS. I'll also commit the patch to make optimset/optimget case insensitive.
OK.
Thanks,
jwe
- fsolve test failure, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/27
- Re: fsolve test failure, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/27
- Re: fsolve test failure, Ben Abbott, 2009/01/27
- Re: fsolve test failure, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/27
- Re: fsolve test failure, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/27
- Message not available
- Re: fsolve test failure,
John W. Eaton <=
- Re: fsolve test failure, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, John W. Eaton, 2009/01/29
- Re: fsolve test failure, Jaroslav Hajek, 2009/01/30