From: Mikael Adlers <mikael@mathcore.com>
To: "'jonathan@leto.net'" <jonathan@leto.net>,
gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
Subject: RE: Root finding page manual suggestion
Date: Wed, 19 Dec 2001 13:20:00 -0000 [thread overview]
Message-ID: <4DFD94A38EB3104E838576A77AEBB36E166DC8@hermes.mathcore.se> (raw)
[-- Warning: decoded text below may be mangled, UTF-8 assumed --]
[-- Attachment #1: Type: text/plain, Size: 3371 bytes --]
Hi,
I agree with the warning. The book you refereed to "Numerical recipes"
by W. H. Press S.A Teukolsky et. al. is not regarded by numerical analysis's
as anything worth reading. The algorithms are old and not
so good implemented. Even the references are bad (how can anyone
implement linear algebra algorithms without including any references
to Golub or van Loan?) The only bright part with the book is that they cover
much in an easy way and book is quite cheap.
Potorti on the other hand refereed to the book "Numerical methods"
by Dalquist and Björck. Two of the most leading numerical analysis's
in the field of ODE and linear algebra. This book is worth reading but
starts to become quite old. I know that a new book, "Numerical Mathematics"
in several volumes will soon be published by SIAM. I can really
recommend this book as a reference work when it becomes available.
Regards,
/Mikael Adlers
BTW. the choice of when to use the Newton or the secant method is
still present Numerical Mathematics (together with the derivation
of the rule).
------------------------------------------------------------------
Mikael Adlers, Ph.D. email: mikael@mathcore.com
MathCore AB phone: +4613 32 85 07
Wallenbergsgata 4 fax: 21 27 01
SE-583 35 Linköping, Sweden http://www.mathcore.com
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Jonathan Leto [ mailto:jonathan@leto.net ]
> Sent: den 19 oktober 2001 04:08
> To: Francesco Potorti`
> Cc: gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com
> Subject: Re: Root finding page manual suggestion
>
>
> Just as a word of warning, I found a interesting site called
> "Why not use Numerical Recipes?", written by JPL.
> Link: http://math.jpl.nasa.gov/nr/
>
> It seems that a few professional numerical analysts have found
> quite a few things wrong with much of the code and theory.
>
>
> Francesco Potorti` (pot@gnu.org) was saying:
>
> > In the "Root Finding Algorithms using Derivatives" page one reads that
> > the Newton's method converges quadratically for single roots, while the
> > secant method has 1.6 convergence order, and "can be useful when
> > computation of the derivative is costly".
> >
> > In fact, as far as I know, it is almost always preferable to Newton's
> > method.
> >
> > Quoting from "Numerical Methods" by Germund Dahlquist and Ake Bjorck,
> > translated by Ned Anderson - Prentice-Hall Inc., 1974.
> >
> > Chapter 6.4.1. (the end) pg 229
> > The choice between the secant method and Newton-Raphson's method
> > depends on the amount of work required to compute f'(x). Suppose the
> > amount of work to compute f'(x) is T times the amouof work to
> > compute a value of f(x). Then an asymptotic analysis can be used to
> > motivate the rule: if T > 0.44, then use the secant method; otherwise,
> > use Newton-Raphson's method.
> >
> > I've used this criterion in some small numerical program I've written,
> > and it works ok. The above means that Newton's method wins only if
> > computing f'(x) is more than twice faster than computing f(x), a quite
> > rare occurrence in practice. I suggest this fact to be mentioned in the
> > manual.
> >
> > Please Cc to me while replying, as I am not subscribed to the list.
>
> --
> jonathan@leto.net
> "Wir mussen wissen. Wir werden wissen."
>
>
>
next reply other threads:[~2001-12-19 13:20 UTC|newest]
Thread overview: 4+ messages / expand[flat|nested] mbox.gz Atom feed top
2001-12-19 13:20 Mikael Adlers [this message]
2001-12-19 13:20 Francesco Potorti`
2001-12-19 13:20 ` Brian Gough
2001-12-19 13:20 ` Jonathan Leto
Reply instructions:
You may reply publicly to this message via plain-text email
using any one of the following methods:
* Save the following mbox file, import it into your mail client,
and reply-to-all from there: mbox
Avoid top-posting and favor interleaved quoting:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posting_style#Interleaved_style
* Reply using the --to, --cc, and --in-reply-to
switches of git-send-email(1):
git send-email \
--in-reply-to=4DFD94A38EB3104E838576A77AEBB36E166DC8@hermes.mathcore.se \
--to=mikael@mathcore.com \
--cc=gsl-discuss@sources.redhat.com \
--cc=jonathan@leto.net \
/path/to/YOUR_REPLY
https://kernel.org/pub/software/scm/git/docs/git-send-email.html
* If your mail client supports setting the In-Reply-To header
via mailto: links, try the mailto: link
Be sure your reply has a Subject: header at the top and a blank line
before the message body.
This is a public inbox, see mirroring instructions
for how to clone and mirror all data and code used for this inbox;
as well as URLs for read-only IMAP folder(s) and NNTP newsgroup(s).