Hi.
I just noticed your request to write the algorithm along the lines of
the
wikipedia article.
The only major difference between my code and the article on
Wikipedia is
that I found it necessary to move the recursive stack in into a data
structure to avoid a StackOverflowException when the non polynomial
curvature is concentrated in a corner of the domain of integration.
Notice
that the Stack objects stores a Stack of limits of integration.
There is a misunderstanding: I'm referring to the "high-level"
description of the algorithm that is the separation of concerns
between the quadrature method and the adaptive process. Your code
mixes the two. Moreover, it does not reuse any of the quadrature
schemes already implemented in CM, but implements a (new?) one
without any reference or comments.
[And this is even without delving into remarks concerning the
code structure itself.]
Additionally, your patch also mixes two concepts: Adaptive
quadrature vs improper integral (which is also MATH-994); it is
hard to follow what problem this issue is supposed to point to,
and how the patch solves it. Indeed your unit tests shows a
problem with improper integrals which the class
"IterativeGaussLegendreIntegrator" is _not_ meant to handle.[1]
To be clear, hopefully, you are demonstrating a problem that
occurs when combining Commons Math code with code which you
created.
The first step is to create a unit test demonstrating whether
an issue exists with "IterativeGaussLegendreIntegrator" code
only (i.e. without relying on your "InfiniteIntegral" class).[1]
If no independent issue exist, then MATH-995 should be replaced
by an appropriate feature request.
Also, it would certainly be helpful to pinpoint the reason why
the combination of "IterativeGaussLegendreIntegrator" and
"InfiniteIntegral" is not legitimate (if that's the case).
Regards,
Gilles
[1] Cf. also my latest comment on the MATH-995 page.
Cheers,
Ajo.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:07 AM, Ajo Fod <ajo....@gmail.com> wrote:
BTW, it is possible that I'm not using LGQ correctly. If so, please
show
how to pass the tests I've added. I'd much rather use something that
is
better tested than my personal code.
-Ajo.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 11:04 AM, Ajo Fod <ajo....@gmail.com> wrote:
I just posted a patch on this issue. Feel free to edit as necessary
to
match your standards. There is a clear issue with LGQ.
Cheers,
Ajo.
On Fri, Jun 28, 2013 at 10:54 AM, Gilles
<gil...@harfang.homelinux.org>wrote:
Ted,
Did you read my other (rather more lengthy) post? Is that
"jumping"?
Yes. You jumped on him rather than helped him be productive.
The
general
message is "we have something in the works, don't bother us with
your
ideas".
Then please read all the messages pertaining to those issues more
carefully:
I never wrote such a thing (neither now nor in the past).
I pointed to a potential problem in the usage of the CM code.
I pointed (several times and in details) to problems in candidate
contributions,
with arguments that go well beyond "bad formatting".
I pointed out how we could improve the functionality _together_
(i.e. by
using
what we have, instead of throwing it out without even trying to
figure
out how
good or bad it is).
IMHO, these were all valid suggestions to be productive in helping
CM to
become
better, instead of merely larger. The former indeed requires more
effort
than
the latter.
Gilles
---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@commons.apache.org
For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@commons.apache.org
