[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: |
Thu, 25 Oct 2012 21:20:49 +0000 |
User-agent: |
Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Ubuntu; Linux x86_64; rv:16.0) Gecko/20100101 Firefox/16.0 |
Update of bug #37613 (project octave):
Assigned to: None => dbateman
_______________________________________________________
Follow-up Comment #4:
If there is an infinite interval, then h0 is always infinite and the test
if (any (abs (diff (trans (subs), [], 2) / h0) < 100 * myeps))
is always going to suceed and the quadrature exit immediately. I suppose
you're right Marco in that matlab must test at the abscissa in the
untransformed subintervals rather than do a single overall test on the bounds
of the subintervals. Though Shampine doesn't make it clear why the test *MUST*
be done in the untransformed intervals I supposed its safer to do so.
I don't think the changes necessary will be that major. We just need to move
the test into __quadgk_eval__ where the abscissa are available. As we would
then be dealing with a matrix of abscissa rather than a vector of sub interval
end points the test would either need to use bsxfun or the new broadcasting
code.
I propose the attached changeset, though a little testing before committing it
might be good idea. In any case with this changeset I now see
octave:24> f = @(x)x.^5.*exp(-x).*sin(x);
octave:25> [q,errbnd] = quadgk(f,0,inf,'RelTol',1e-8,'AbsTol',1e-12)
q = -15.000
errbnd = 1.0290e-08
So it appears to work correctly.
D.
(file #26829)
_______________________________________________________
Additional Item Attachment:
File name: changeset Size:3 KB
_______________________________________________________
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, 2012/10/24
- [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 <=
- [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