On 09/28/10 12:02 PM, maldun wrote:
Ok first I would thank everyone for their thoughts. I think the best
is to do a design document
I never thought I'd hear anyone used the term "design document" in relation to
Sage!
Seriously, Sage does need to
* Document the requirements for Sage
* Docu
On Sep 28, 4:02 am, maldun wrote:
> Ok first I would thank everyone for their thoughts. I think the best
> is to do a design document, or at least start a ticket where we come
> to a common agreement how to handle the input because there are
> several possiblities to do that. And it is important
Ok first I would thank everyone for their thoughts. I think the best
is to do a design document, or at least start a ticket where we come
to a common agreement how to handle the input because there are
several possiblities to do that. And it is important that we are more
or less happy about the sol
On Sep 22, 11:57 pm, Jonathan Bober wrote:
And it probably isn't unreasonable for an integration routine to
> guess at that information,
A guess.
> and to provide error bounds that are rigorous
> assuming
An assumption
>a set of not unreasonable hypotheses about the function it is
> in
On Sep 23, 5:46 am, Burcin Erocal wrote:
> How does doing N[Integrate[ ... ]] in MMA compare to using NIntegrate?
Isn't this obvious? N[Integrate[f[x],{x,a,b}] tries to compute
Integrate[f[x],{x,a,b}] exactly by symbolic methods. Then
evaluates the result if possible. NIntegrate does not
On 9/23/10 1:34 AM, Jonathan Bober wrote:
At the very least, if a warning might be printed to standard
output I would like a way to turn it off.
If you use the standard Python warning framework, this would be easy.
Jason
--
To post to this group, send an email to sage-devel@googlegroups.com
On Sun, 2010-09-19 at 08:12 -0700, rjf wrote:
> Any program that computes a quadrature by evaluating the integral at
> selected points cannot provide
> a rigorous error bound. I don't know what a rigorous "error estimate"
> is, unless it is an
> estimate of what might be a rigorous bound. And thu
On Sep 22, 4:12 pm, maldun wrote:
>
> Perhaps I should sort out my point before we cause misunderstandings:
> It's true that a user familiar with numerics knows about such
> behavior.
Not necessarily. A user might not even realize that the integrand
is oscillatory, and it is somewhat of a spe
I
On 21 Sep., 16:23, rjf wrote:
> On Sep 20, 7:14 am, maldun wrote:
>
>
>
> > That's true, but it is important that automated routines do good error
> > estimation
> > especially for smooth functions.
>
> That is pretty easy if you have a smooth function. So perhaps we need
> a program
> to tes
On Sep 20, 7:14 am, maldun wrote:
>
> That's true, but it is important that automated routines do good error
> estimation
> especially for smooth functions.
That is pretty easy if you have a smooth function. So perhaps we need
a program
to test if a function is smooth :)
> But it is the wr
On Sep 19, 5:12 pm, rjf wrote:
> Any program that computes a quadrature by evaluating the integral at
> selected points cannot provide
> a rigorous error bound. I don't know what a rigorous "error estimate"
> is, unless it is an
> estimate of what might be a rigorous bound. And thus not rigoro
Any program that computes a quadrature by evaluating the integral at
selected points cannot provide
a rigorous error bound. I don't know what a rigorous "error estimate"
is, unless it is an
estimate of what might be a rigorous bound. And thus not rigorous at
all, since the
estimate might be wrong
On 17 Sep., 22:45, Fredrik Johansson
wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 17, 2010 at 12:48 AM, maldun wrote:
> > Do you see the problems?! These are caused by the high oscillation,
> > but we get no warning.
> > If you use scipy you would get the following:
>
> It is possible to get an error estimate back fro
13 matches
Mail list logo
