On Wed, 28 Oct 2009 at 04:40PM +0100, Thierry Dumont wrote:
> I have looked at the quadrature routines:
>
> -in gsl: it seems that qags routine is called: this is a sophisticated
> procedure with step adaptation, and convergence acceleration with the
> epsilon-algorithm. This should integrate some
> "There should be one-- and preferably only one --obvious way to do it."
> ...
>
> and confusing because tab completion always pulls up both commands, and
> the instant question is, "there must be some difference between these;
> which one is right for me?"
You are perfectly right, this is just
Thierry Dumont wrote:
> I have looked at the quadrature routines:
>
> -in gsl: it seems that qags routine is called: this is a sophisticated
> procedure with step adaptation, and convergence acceleration with the
> epsilon-algorithm. This should integrate some singular functions and
> discontinuo
I have looked at the quadrature routines:
-in gsl: it seems that qags routine is called: this is a sophisticated
procedure with step adaptation, and convergence acceleration with the
epsilon-algorithm. This should integrate some singular functions and
discontinuous functions.
-in scipy: things loo
Jason Grout a écrit :
> Thierry Dumont wrote:
>> Jason Grout a écrit :
>>> ...
>>>- algorithm='scipy' -- call the scipy numerical integration routines
>>> (maybe make this the default if it is faster than gsl).
>>>
>>> ..
>> I do not think that this is the only criterion... How do thes
Thierry Dumont wrote:
> Jason Grout a écrit :
>> ...
>>- algorithm='scipy' -- call the scipy numerical integration routines
>> (maybe make this the default if it is faster than gsl).
>>
>> ..
>
> I do not think that this is the only criterion... How do these methods
> compare from t
Jason Grout a écrit :
> ...
>- algorithm='scipy' -- call the scipy numerical integration routines
> (maybe make this the default if it is faster than gsl).
>
> ..
I do not think that this is the only criterion... How do these methods
compare from the numerical point of view? Making
I definitely like the ability to call different libraries with an
algorithm argument. It would also be nice to include mpmath as an
option since it support many different algorithms and arbitrary
precision.
On Oct 27, 5:05 pm, Jason Grout wrote:
> Writing some class worksheets yesterday exposed
kcrisman wrote:
>>> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
>>> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
>>> commands. Should we only define one of them?
>> Is integral_numerical a possibility (for those who like tab-completions)?
>
> I don'
>
> > What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
> > functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
> > commands. Should we only define one of them?
>
> Is integral_numerical a possibility (for those who like tab-completions)?
I don't see why it's a
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 8:00 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> David Joyner wrote:
>> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jason Grout
>> wrote:
>>
>> ...
>>
>>> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
>>> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
>>> c
David Joyner wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>
> ...
>
>> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
>> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
>> commands. Should we only define one of them?
>>
>
> Is integra
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 7:31 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
...
>
> What about nintegrate/nintegral? We don't have these now (as top-level
> functions), but they would mirror nicely the integral/integrate
> commands. Should we only define one of them?
>
Is integral_numerical a possibility (for tho
William Stein wrote:
> On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Jason Grout
> wrote:
>> Writing some class worksheets yesterday exposed me to our
>> inconsistencies in numerical integration commands. Currently:
>>
>> * numerical_integral calls gsl to do integration, and the syntax is
>> numerical_integr
On Tue, Oct 27, 2009 at 2:05 PM, Jason Grout
wrote:
>
> Writing some class worksheets yesterday exposed me to our
> inconsistencies in numerical integration commands. Currently:
>
> * numerical_integral calls gsl to do integration, and the syntax is
> numerical_integral(f, start, end) or numeric
15 matches
Mail list logo
