Hello,
Is it possible to set the maximum step size in the ode (ordinary
differential equation) solvers? It's pretty important that the solver
doesn't start running away... Also, I will have large and sudden changes
in some of the parameters and I think I will need to reset the step size
to somethi
John D Lamb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes:
> Brian Gough wrote:
>> Jochen Küpper writes:
>>> Shouldn't the GSL free-routines be changed like the following patch?
>> My thinking on that was that for most people calling the free()
>> functions on a null pointer is usually an error rather than by desig
Brian Gough wrote:
> Jochen Küpper writes:
> > > I checked the source code for gsl_matrix_free and it will fail if passed
> > > a null pointer.
> >
> > Shouldn't the GSL free-routines be changed like the following patch?
>
> My thinking on that was that for most people calling the free()
> fun
James Bergstra writes:
> I am guessing, that the todo list has:
> - implement revised line search as an alternative implementation of
> "directional_minimize.c" ?
Yes, I want to put this in the next release.
> - add testing framework for minimization algos
> - add rosenbrock to test c
Jochen Küpper writes:
> > I checked the source code for gsl_matrix_free and it will fail if passed
> > a null pointer.
>
> Shouldn't the GSL free-routines be changed like the following patch?
My thinking on that was that for most people calling the free()
functions on a null pointer is usuall
Daniel J Farrell writes:
> Is it possible to use two gsl_vector (or even just C arrays) as
> arguments to gsl's more advanced integration function?
> For example, I have made this function which simply takes in two
> columns of numbers an X axis and Y axis then computes the area via
> th
eknecronzontas writes:
> The stepsize for finite-differencing in
> gsl-1.8/multiroots/fdjacobian.c is specified by the
> lines
>
> > double xj = gsl_vector_get (x, j);
> > double dx = epsrel * fabs (xj);
>
> This is, of course mathematically correct.
> Nevertheless, the behavior is less
On Mon, Jun 12, 2006 at 12:15:42AM -0500, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
> I am trying to figure out a way to efficiently free the memory after a gsl
> matrix is no longer being used. Of course, one could call
> gsl_matrix_free(). However in my case, the block pointer may or may not be
> allocated.
>
>
