Return-Path: Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@www.apache.org Received: (qmail 28287 invoked from network); 12 Apr 2011 16:11:17 -0000 Received: from hermes.apache.org (HELO mail.apache.org) (140.211.11.3) by minotaur.apache.org with SMTP; 12 Apr 2011 16:11:17 -0000 Received: (qmail 25378 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2011 16:11:17 -0000 Delivered-To: apmail-commons-dev-archive@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 25297 invoked by uid 500); 12 Apr 2011 16:11:16 -0000 Mailing-List: contact dev-help@commons.apache.org; run by ezmlm Precedence: bulk List-Help: List-Unsubscribe: List-Post: List-Id: Reply-To: "Commons Developers List" Delivered-To: mailing list dev@commons.apache.org Received: (qmail 25289 invoked by uid 99); 12 Apr 2011 16:11:16 -0000 Received: from athena.apache.org (HELO athena.apache.org) (140.211.11.136) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:11:16 +0000 X-ASF-Spam-Status: No, hits=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=FREEMAIL_FROM,RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW,SPF_PASS X-Spam-Check-By: apache.org Received-SPF: pass (athena.apache.org: domain of phil.steitz@gmail.com designates 209.85.160.43 as permitted sender) Received: from [209.85.160.43] (HELO mail-pw0-f43.google.com) (209.85.160.43) by apache.org (qpsmtpd/0.29) with ESMTP; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 16:11:09 +0000 Received: by pwj4 with SMTP id 4so2611531pwj.30 for ; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:10:48 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=domainkey-signature:message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to :subject:references:in-reply-to:content-type :content-transfer-encoding; bh=kTz+uci+N86nUf1lyBBkGAY4/AATIXxQUp4wZvl3FsU=; b=x6hBbtDp1mUYAY/Qkg0D2cbnVwEtYIGGciAiq9Cd2ndizSd9w7lQ1GMBY6gtXqj+3r KFlBWTA1MJWeMtw+Swwz3HdBrySDbaua6nn7GMhLav3Ow0FZs7fYWJFqrm00a9KCJl6M nJGuW3v+vh4dU9geWmBVm80KgFUTMcyu6IY94= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=gamma; h=message-id:date:from:user-agent:mime-version:to:subject:references :in-reply-to:content-type:content-transfer-encoding; b=x+E07dL4MnwSoCN/f7I74UcpiMHxK5qhOeMxLP+SYDTHXtiPIeevZyU3J/kLCEpxLB kwIyKLdGZlTuctG3lEQ99PjMlK4ePMqVH/bo6pBQPfHyNnkl/0TvyQAMKF6R+VG4Ds/8 UGf+8+yym/s+NbZGSasjA6Rkh4DcN1LZRM4Gc= Received: by 10.142.171.16 with SMTP id t16mr6496061wfe.402.1302624648749; Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:10:48 -0700 (PDT) Received: from a.local (66-17-91-138-azulbell101llc.sap.phx.sparkplugbb.net [66.17.91.138]) by mx.google.com with ESMTPS id w11sm9868718wfh.6.2011.04.12.09.10.47 (version=SSLv3 cipher=OTHER); Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:10:47 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: <4DA47985.3070903@gmail.com> Date: Tue, 12 Apr 2011 09:10:45 -0700 From: Phil Steitz User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; U; Intel Mac OS X 10.6; en-US; rv:1.9.2.15) Gecko/20110303 Lightning/1.0b2 Thunderbird/3.1.9 MIME-Version: 1.0 To: Commons Developers List Subject: Re: [math] resetting relative and absolute tolerances in ODE adaptive step size integrators References: <379411337.1755041302622016003.JavaMail.root@spooler6-g27.priv.proxad.net> In-Reply-To: <379411337.1755041302622016003.JavaMail.root@spooler6-g27.priv.proxad.net> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit On 4/12/11 8:26 AM, luc.maisonobe@free.fr wrote: > Hi Phil, > > ----- "Phil Steitz" a écrit : > >> On 4/12/11 1:51 AM, luc.maisonobe@free.fr wrote: >>> Hi all, >>> >>> I have hit a limitation of the current implementation of ODE >> integrators with adaptive step size. For now, the tolerances that are >> used to adjust the step size are specified only at construction time >> and cannot be changed afterwards. However, these tolerances are highly >> problem-dependent and in fact the dimension of the problem (which is >> related to the dimension of the vectorial version of the tolerances) >> is specified only at integration time, not at construction time. >>> So I consider adding at the top-level hierarchy (abstract class >> AdaptiveStepsizeIntegrator) a few setters to allow users to change >> these tolerances after the integrator has been built. It seems the >> integrators by themselves were not documented as immutable (I first >> thought they were), so this change is probably harmless. >>> I am going to open a Jira issue for this. >>> >>> Any thoughts ? >> One natural thing to consider is to provide the tolerances at >> integration time - i.e., to either add the vectors explicitly as >> arguments to the integrate method or to create an ODEProblem or >> better-named class that encapsulates the DE, tolerances, initial >> values and time parameters. > No, it would break the interface that is shared with fixed step size integrators. > Preserving the compatibility with both types of integrators is very important. This > is the same reason why step size is not set at integration time for fixed step integrator. Got it. What about putting the specialization in the Problem class rather than in the integrators? So the fixed step integrator gets a specialized integration problem rather than exposing problem parameters itself? Would something like that be possible? Phil > Luc > >> Phil >>> Luc >>> >>> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >>> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org >>> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org >>> >>> >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscribe@commons.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: dev-help@commons.apache.org