[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

RE: contourc - Octave vs Matlab

From: Big Muscle
Subject: RE: contourc - Octave vs Matlab
Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:00:08 +0200

I don't have simple example, but I can provide you report from Octave's
diary in an attachment.

And Matlab provides following contour matrix:

c =

  Columns 1 through 11

    1.0804   -5.6250   -5.9210    1.3143   -5.2871   -5.6250    1.0804
4.8132   -6.8916   -6.4375   -5.9388
    5.0000    0.4556   10.2554    5.7364    9.1575    0.4556    5.0000
-4.6545  -11.9367         0  -10.2863

  Column 12


You can see that it is different. Octave generates one closed contour at
level 1.0804, but matlab generates two contours.

(I hope I'm responding to correct e-mail, I have never used mailing lists)

-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Abbott [mailto:address@hidden 
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:36 PM
To: Big Muscle
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: contourc - Octave vs Matlab

On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Big Muscle wrote:

> Hello.
> Is Octave's contourc algorithm supposed to produced exactly same  
> contours as Matlab algorithm? I would like to use Octave's source  
> code to my application, but it doesn't provide same result as  
> Matlab. The difference is that Matlab draws some countours at same  
> level as two different contours, but Octave draws it as one.
> I also tried to use PLPlot algorithm, but it has completely inversed  
> problem - it sometimes draws two closed contours where Matlab draws  
> only one closed contour.
> I think my problem has something to do with saddle points where both  
> algorithms use different techniques to choose which edges to connect.
> Is there something to do with this? Thank you!
> Tomas

I'm confused as to the specifics. Can you provide a simple example  
illustrating the difference between Octave and Matlab?


Attachment: diary
Description: Binary data

reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]