On 3/7/11 2:52 PM, Jon Herman wrote:
It really is exactly the same process, but sure. Below is my Matlab translation of the python code I posted earlier, it functions at the increased accuracy I've shown above.k(:,1)=feval(deq, ti, x, mu); for n = 2:1:13 nn=n-1; Xtemp1 = 0.0; for j = 1:1:nn Xtemp1 = Xtemp1 + beta(n,j) * k(:,j); end x=xwrk+ dt * Xtemp1; ti=twrk+alph(n)*dt; k(:,n)=feval(deq, ti, x, mu); end Xtemp2=0.0; for l = 1:1:13 Xtemp2=Xtemp2+ch(l)*k(:,l); end x=xwrk + dt * Xtemp2; t=twrk+dt;
You may want to try printing out values in both implementations to see where they start to diverge.
-- Robert Kern "I have come to believe that the whole world is an enigma, a harmless enigma that is made terrible by our own mad attempt to interpret it as though it had an underlying truth." -- Umberto Eco -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
