Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #1 20131125 05:44:32
Not sure if output is rightHello Last edited by evinda (20131125 05:47:27) #2 20131125 14:17:35
Re: Not sure if output is rightThere are lots of different algorithms that have those names. Please point me to the exact ones or describe them further. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #3 20131126 07:40:15
Re: Not sure if output is right
The formula I have to use for the Jacobi method is this: D*x_{k+1}=(U+L)*x_{k}+b, #4 20131126 11:34:57
Re: Not sure if output is rightHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #5 20131126 11:51:25
Re: Not sure if output is rightD is the diagonal component of the matrix A, i.e., it is a matrix whose diagonal elements are equal to the elements on the diagonals of A, while the rest are 0. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #6 20131126 11:58:26
Re: Not sure if output is rightNow why on earth would anyone use all that linear algebra jargon for such a simple process as iteration and SOR? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #7 20131126 12:02:35
Re: Not sure if output is rightSor? The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #8 20131126 12:03:51
Re: Not sure if output is rightMore jargon, it means successive over relaxation. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #9 20131126 12:07:45
Re: Not sure if output is rightThe word jargon always reminds me of the 'e'less game. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #10 20131126 12:09:13
Re: Not sure if output is rightIt should be jargone. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #11 20131126 12:29:26
Re: Not sure if output is rightThe Jacobi is not converging for some reason. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #12 20131126 20:29:39
Re: Not sure if output is rightHi; There is an easy trick that will make Gauss Seidel converge but the convergence will be slow. The Jacobi has imaginary eigenvalues so I do not think it will converge. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #14 20131130 22:48:18
Re: Not sure if output is rightHi; In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #16 20131201 01:46:57
Re: Not sure if output is rightYou can rearrange the matrix until it is diagonally dominant or close to it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #18 20131202 03:44:39
Re: Not sure if output is rightUse this matrix here: In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #20 20131202 04:21:27
Re: Not sure if output is rightYou can not do it for a general case. Each one is different and it may not work next time. Numerical work is a hands on skill. You must experiment. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #22 20131202 05:35:07
Re: Not sure if output is rightYou are not following. Nothing on this earth will ever get the answer to that linear system using Matlab's precision. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #23 20131202 05:40:45
Re: Not sure if output is right
And what if I want to apply the methods at a 250x250 tridiagonal matrix with the number 2 at the main diagonal,1 at the first diagonal below this and also 1 at the diagonal above this?Because both of the methods do not converge for this matrix.. Last edited by evinda (20131202 05:43:44) #24 20131202 05:46:17
Re: Not sure if output is rightThe matrix is already diagonally dominant. There is nothing else to be done with it. Numerical methods are not like Algebra. They do not always work! In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #25 20131202 05:50:31
Re: Not sure if output is right
So,why do the methods not converge,although the matrix is diagonally dominant?? 