On Tuesday 09 December 2008 8:42:25 pm Lowell Johnson wrote:
>
[snip]
> So I suggest trying the array functions. Hopefully, they'll work for your
> needs. But I do plan to use your report to improve the root-finding
> procedure. I'm fairly confident that I can patch the "blips" you've
> reported (hopefully fixing others in the process). But the equations are
> pretty fickle -- even very minor perturbations can throw them off the
> desired convergence.
Following up on my earlier response, I just tried recreating your problem case
of order=29, 0 < q < 1000. The array functions do indeed avoid the "blips" at
q~480, 630, and 850.
But the array is truncated too short for accurate results beyond q=50 or so.
So I rebuilt, adding another 20 rows to the recurrence matrix. That appears
to give accurate results all the way to q=1000 (as far as I computed). If you
want to give it a shot, apply the following patch to your build:
-------------------------------------------------
diff --git a/specfunc/mathieu_workspace.c b/specfunc/mathieu_workspace.c
index 782c7dd..e6a4615 100644
--- a/specfunc/mathieu_workspace.c
+++ b/specfunc/mathieu_workspace.c
@@ -36,6 +36,7 @@ gsl_sf_mathieu_workspace *gsl_sf_mathieu_alloc(const size_t
nn,
/* Compute the maximum number of extra terms required for 10^-18 root
accuracy for a given value of q (contributed by Brian Gladman). */
extra_values = (int)(2.1*pow(fabs(qq), 0.37)) + 9;
+ extra_values += 20; /* additional fudge */
if (nn + 1 == 0)
{
-------------------------------------------------
Regards,
--
Lowell
_______________________________________________
Bug-gsl mailing list
[email protected]
http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/bug-gsl
