This is one of those leaps of faith that we ask you to make in the Education Business, and then we wonder why you didn't absorb it. The fact is that in a large range of applications, Newton (or some close relation) is the best way to solve things. Mathematica uses a Newton iteration when you invoke FindRoot. I use a generalized Newton iteration on a daily basis to solve systems of several thousand coupled non-linear equations. No Newton is not the universal best way to solve equations. You will have to learn several methods, if you get heavily involved in the equation solution business, but this is a good start to your education in the field.
What is a Taylor Series Expansion?
If you know the value of a function, and the value of all of its derivatives at a point, the Taylor Series gives you a way to obtain values of the function near that point without ever having to know the exact form of the function. To get a thorough answer to this question, you should take a look in a calculus book. If you don't have such a book, go to the math library, find the section of the shelves with calculus textbooks, and browse until you find one that makes sense.
This week I memorized the Taylor expansion formulas. Who was Taylor?
Brook Taylor was an English mathematician, born in 1685, died 1731. The Taylor expansion formula, (or Taylor's Theorem) was given in a 1715 publication called "Methodus Incrementorum Directa et Inversa". This work laid out the principles of the calculus of finite differences, and provided the first description of the motion of a vibrating string. He hung out with guys like Newton and Liebniz in the Royal Society, so was active during a fairly exciting time in the development of Mathematics and Physics.
How do you tie the iteration into the DO loop?
The best thing to do is to make the DO loop the iteration itself. The DO loop index is the iteration counter, and an IF test leaves the loop if convergence is obtained
Look at the Postscript file on the subject. The bottom line is that where a first derivative is needed, the Newton method uses a value obtained from an analytic (standard calculus) evaluation of the derivative, but the Secant method uses a finite difference approximation to the derivative.
Why does the Newton iteration often work better than the secant method for nonlinear functions like f(x,y)?
Systems involving more than one equation and one unknown, there is no clean way to obtain approximations to the partial derivatives needed in the iteration, based only on past function values obtained during the iteration. Say that I have values for four iterations as follows
x y f(x,y) g(x,y) ------------------------------- 1.1 2.0 2.2 5.2 .9 2.2 2.0 5.7 .7 2.4 1.7 6.5 .6 2.5 1.5 6.6Because x and y are changing simultaneously from one iteration to the next, it is very difficult (but not impossible) to construct numerical approximations to the partial derivatives (e.g. derivative of f with respect to x while y is constant) .
Aside from declaring the right variables CHARACTER, very little changes from a sort of numbers. You can continue to use the same methods with the same .LT. or .GT. (maybe .LE. or .GE.) tests. The secret is understanding how Fortran views the order or character strings. The best way to understand this ordering this is to play with the names in "grades.in" once you have your program working. Generally 'AA'<'Aa'<'Aaa'<'Baa' <'Bba'<'Zba'<'aAa'<'aaa'<'zaa'.
Can you rate how expensive (time consuming) the various sort techniques are?
You can't predict time consumption without knowing something about the data. As a general rule bubble comes in last. See the next question.
Is there ever a case when it is very bad to use a particular sorting type?
Yes, if you have a large number (million, billion, ...) of numbers or names that are randomly ordered, then you should not use bubble, selection, or insertion sort. Use the NETLIB routine or one of its relatives that take of order n log(n) computer operations rather than n2 operations. If you have a list that was recently sorted, and a couple of new elements are tagged on the end, but out of order, then you do not want to do a selection sort, and probably shouldn't use a bubble or the NETLIB sort in grades.f. Something related to an insertion sort (maybe with a halving search that I'll show you later) is a very good idea.
Why doesn't Fortran have a built in Sort routine?
It is neither common enough nor a simple enough to rate as an intrinsic function. You will find other more frequently used procedures that fall into this category. That is why NETLIB was developed. Having a subroutine that you can plug into your program is nearly as easy as having an intrinsic function, and generally a lot more flexible.
No, but they almost always warn you if a package is inadequately tested. In general these subroutines are as well tested as any software that you will find. Packages like LINPACK and BLAS are at the zero bug level.
How would you find a subprogram in NETLIB if you didn't know its name?
In NETSCAPE select the line that searches the NETLIB data base by topic. You can also look for a file with a name beginning "index". Also check the file "linpack.doc" in ~jhm for a description of the LINPACK systematic naming convention, giving another approach to finding some subroutines.
When is Gauss Elimination Used?
The simple answer is: When you are going to solve a set of linear equations without returning for another solution with a different right hand side, but the same coefficients for the unknowns. Your question is actually deeper than you may suspect. At some point, depending on the number and location of non-zero coefficients, and the total number of equations, Gauss Elimination becomes too expensive in both computer time and memory requirements. Then you must shift to iterative solution methods. I will not be teaching these methods. However, it is worth knowing that your first introduction to iterative solution of linear equations will probably be the Gauss-Seidel method. This method is relatively simple to teach, but not used frequently in modern applications.
To solve the matrices, couldn't you use Kramer's rule? Is there anything in Netlib using Kramer's rule?
You can, but once you go beyond 3 equations and 3 unknowns Kramer's rule is vastly more expensive than Gauss Elimination for solving the equations. It has to do with the expense of evaluating a Determinant. Try counting operations for Kramer's on 3 equations, 4 equations and 5 equations. I've never even bothered to look for a Kramer's rule subroutine, and would be surprised to find one in LINPACK. By the way, another side benefit of LU decomposition is that the Determinant of the original matrix can be evaluated quickly by calculating the product of the Determinants of L and U.
What is the purpose of having an additional array that carries along the values of an original array?
I assume you are referring to my use of arrays "a" and "at" in some of my examples. The reason is that when you pass an array "a" to a LINPACK subroutine as part of a solution of a set of linear equations, the subroutine overwrites the original values in "a". The extra array "at" is needed only if you have further use for those original coefficients. I needed them for a cross-check of results.
What is the purpose of a Transpose?
A transpose is an operation to change a matrix into another specific matrix. If you want an n by n matrix B to be the transpose of A, then the Fortran to do the job is this:
do i =1,n
do j = 1,n
b(i,j) = a(j,i)
It is useful in various obsure solution procedures, one or another of which you may stumble across in your career. If you remember what I said about the order matrix elements are stored in C versus Fortran, you may see that this operation can be very useful in programs involving mixtures of C and Fortran subroutines.
You've gotten to the heart of many numerical methods. The act of fitting a curve is usually an approximation so that you are not producing a true analytic solution to the original differential equation. The use of fit curves generate algebraic equations that can be solved relatively with computers (LINPACK, Newton, ...). This idea is in a sense at the heart of Finite Element methods. You can take quite a few courses on that subject.
What does Least Squares do?
"Fits" a line or curve to a set of data points. By now you should know that with 2 points you can exactly determine the slope and intercept of a straight line passing through the points. What if you have 10 points, that should fall on a straight line, but because of experimental error, don't really line up. There is no single straight line (y = m x + b) that passes through all ten points. The best that you can hope for is a line passing near all 10 points, but probably not through any of them. The problem is to come of with a systematic method for defining "near" and finding the line that is nearest the points. That's where least squares comes in.
How exactly do you use the cubic fit and what's its purpose?
The reason for the fit is that I have values of some function only at a limited number of points. For example, I may need viscosity of a liquid at any temperature between 0 and 120 Fahrenheit. However, I only keep values of viscosity stored for a limited number of temperatures, say T= 0, 20, 40, 60, 80, 100, and 120 F. What I do is to obtain coefficients for a cubic function within each of the intervals between my temperatures (6 intervals, 4 coefficients in each interval). There are two ways to get these coefficients. As an example, let's get a cubic for temperatures between 40 F and 60 F. One way is to use the viscosities at 20, 40, 60, and 80 F. to generate 4 equations with 4 unknown coefficients. The other is to use temperatures at 40 F and 60 F, and force a match to the first and second derivatives of the fits in adjacent intervals to get enough equations. Unfortunately, this later "spline" approach results in a coupled set of linear equations for the cubic coefficients in all intervals, increasing the complexity of the problem. In either case, you end up with an expression:
visc = a0 + a1*T + a2*T**2 + a3*T**3
with known values for a0, a1, a2, and a3. Plug in any T between 40 and 60, and you will get an approximation to the viscosity at that temperature. Usually, this will give a more accurate approximation for values of viscosity in the interval 40 < T < 60, than you would get with a simple linear interpolation. Unfortunately, there are times when the cubic fit can behave very badly, "kinking" by placing the maximum and/or minimum of the cubic within the interpolation range.
Usually, but not always. If the function to be integrated has some rapid changes and you don't use enough sampling points, then the quadratic fit in Simpson's method may give stranger results than a simple Trapezoidal method..
Is Simpson's Method faster than the Trapezoidal method? Which one is more reliable?
Simpson's Method is usually faster simply because you usually don't need to evaluate the function at as many points to obtain the same accuracy for the definite integral. If you are integrating smooth functions both are reliable. If your function may have some regions of rapid change in value and derivatives, then trapezoidal is more reliable.
What form of numerical integration do you think is the most reliable?
For a definite integral of a known function, the trapezoidal method is the most reliable. You don't get unintended kinks from a straight line. For integration of an ODE, the Implicit Euler is the most reliable. In either case you need to watch the integration step size to be sure that you maintain accuracy that you can accept, and will need more steps than some other methods.
We will look at a simple first order system of differential equations. No fancy theorems. We will follow the steps to convert the differential equations to algebraic equations and proceed with a solution. If time permits, I may discuss a second order ODE.
Why does it seem like ODE's are only solved numerically with a computer. Why can't they be solved analytically like Mathematica can do?
The number of equations that Mathematica can solve analytically is actually relatively limited. When you get to the ones involved in really interesting physical models of complex systems, neither Mathematica nor the best Mathematicians can give you a useful analytic solution.
If we could only remember a couple sentences about ODE solutions what would they be?
Use existing solution packages whenever possible from places like NETLIB (ODEPACK). However, test them carefully for limits of accuracy and stability. One good class of tests is to make a series of runs, each with different integration steps.
Could you list methods (Secant, Adams, ...) in order of Accuracy.
Decouple Secant from Adams, Runge-Kutta, etc. Secant like Newton is used to solve non-linear algebraic equations (yes those algebraic equations could be generated by an implicit Adam's-Moulton, but that's a second level of solution detail). For a given number of iterations, Secant usually produces a less accurate answer than Newton. On the ODE side, Explicit and Implicit Euler formally have the same first order (lowest) accuracy. Crank-Nicholson has the next higher (second order) accuracy. Runge-Kutta, Adams-Bashford, Adams-Moulton, and Implicit Adams-Moulton are all tied for the highest formal accuracy (fourth order) of those that we have studied. In practice Runge-Kutta is usually a little more accurate than the others for a given step size. This accuracy has meaning only as long as the methods stay numerically stable. The ordering of methods from first to last to give up as step size is increased is usually (but not always): Explicit Euler or Adams-Bashford give up first ; Adams-Moulton holds on until a little larger step size; Implicit Adams-Moulton and Runge-Kutta last further; and Implicit Euler stays stable to any time step size (results may be very inaccurate, but not fatal to the floating point unit)
I'm not the best guy to ask this question, because I can't give you a complete answer. There are large numbers of papers in journals on the subject if you are interested, and source code available for "random number" generators. The simple answer is that the don't generate random numbers. They generate "pseudo-random" numbers. These are sequences of numbers that proceed from some starting point (called the seed) and via a well determined algorithm produce a series of numbers that for most purposes look random. Start with the same seed, generate the same sequence of numbers. You can introduce a certain amount of true randomness in the whole process with your selection of the seed. Pull out the number of milliseconds that have elapsed during the day and scale by an appropriate number.
Maintained by John Mahaffy : email@example.com