Re: [Fink-users] trouble with Octave
Alexander Hansen wrote: > > On 9/24/07, Ben Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >> >> >> Jean-François Mertens-3 wrote: >> > >> > Please redo ! Once is apparently not sufficient .. >> > Or at least check that your equality above is not right! >> > Correct coefficients with you sequence of denominators >> > are -5i/54 , 5i/54 , 2/9 , 2/9 ... if I'm not mistaken. >> > >> >> Thanks for the correction. >> >> >> Jean-François Mertens-3 wrote: >> > >> > But this has no importance : >> > >> > The link documents quite well that it is an upstream problem, >> > [...] >> > >> >> Agreed. Just making sure its not just me. >> -- >> View this message in context: >> http://www.nabble.com/trouble-with-Octave-tf4511817.html#a12870464 >> Sent from the fink-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. >> >> > Unfortunately, it appears that 2.9.14 (at least on PowerPC), still > doesn't give an answer that agrees with the analytic one: > [... snip ...] > So it appears upstream hasn't quite worked this out yet. > -- > Alexander K. Hansen > I also noticed this yesterday. There are at least two individuals, in addition to myself, who are working on this. I'd like to eventually introduce a version that includes all of Matlab's functionality, for their function of the same name. In the meantime, two versions have been posted on Octave's message board that address this problem with pole multiplicity (but do not yet include all of Matlab's functionality). If anyone wants to help out, or make use of some of the corrected versions, you can find them on Octave's message boad, look for the subject "residue() confusion". -- View this message in context: http://www.nabble.com/trouble-with-Octave-tf4511817.html#a12924347 Sent from the fink-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Fink-users mailing list Fink-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
Re: [Fink-users] trouble with Octave
On 9/24/07, Ben Abbott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Jean-François Mertens-3 wrote: > > > > Please redo ! Once is apparently not sufficient .. > > Or at least check that your equality above is not right! > > Correct coefficients with you sequence of denominators > > are -5i/54 , 5i/54 , 2/9 , 2/9 ... if I'm not mistaken. > > > > Thanks for the correction. > > > Jean-François Mertens-3 wrote: > > > > But this has no importance : > > > > The link documents quite well that it is an upstream problem, > > [...] > > > > Agreed. Just making sure its not just me. > -- > View this message in context: > http://www.nabble.com/trouble-with-Octave-tf4511817.html#a12870464 > Sent from the fink-users mailing list archive at Nabble.com. > > Unfortunately, it appears that 2.9.14 (at least on PowerPC), still doesn't give an answer that agrees with the analytic one: octave:1> num = [1 0 1]; octave:2> den = [1 0 18 0 81]; octave:3> [a,p,k,e] = residue(num,den) a = 8.4492e+06 - 3.9658e+06i 8.4492e+06 + 3.9658e+06i -8.4492e+06 + 3.9658e+06i -8.4492e+06 - 3.9658e+06i p = 0. + 3.i 0. - 3.i -0. + 3.i -0. - 3.i k = [](0x0) e = 1 1 1 1 And for reference, 2.9.14 on my Debian/x86 box gives: octave2.9:1> num = [1 0 1]; octave2.9:2> den = [1 0 18 0 81]; octave2.9:3> [a,p,k,e] = residue(num,den) a = 7.4540e+03 - 9.9176e+06i 7.4540e+03 + 9.9176e+06i -7.4540e+03 + 9.9176e+06i -7.4540e+03 - 9.9176e+06i p = 0. + 3.i 0. - 3.i -0. + 3.i -0. - 3.i k = [](0x0) e = 1 1 1 1 So it appears upstream hasn't quite worked this out yet. -- Alexander K. Hansen akh AT finkproject DOT org Fink User Liaison and Documenter - This SF.net email is sponsored by: Microsoft Defy all challenges. Microsoft(R) Visual Studio 2005. http://clk.atdmt.com/MRT/go/vse012070mrt/direct/01/ ___ Fink-users mailing list Fink-users@lists.sourceforge.net https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/fink-users
