Re: Gauss-Kronrod algorithm

*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net*Subject*: [mg75524] Re: Gauss-Kronrod algorithm*From*: Peter Pein <petsie at dordos.net>*Date*: Fri, 4 May 2007 04:11:53 -0400 (EDT)*References*: <f04nlc$8kr$1@smc.vnet.net><f16pjl$70u$1@smc.vnet.net> <f19fuf$4sj$1@smc.vnet.net>

dimitris schrieb: > Although this is from the documentation of the upcoming version of > Mathematica > I suggest you to have a look! > > http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/NIntegrate.html > ... This is a strange page... suppose you want the integral of the first example with PrecisionGoal 30: in Mathematica 5.1 for Windoze: In[1]:= (* with MachinePrecision: *) vars = {x1, x2, x3, x4}; Timing[NIntegrate[Inner[Divide, vars, {3, 2, 2, 10}]^(-1/2), Evaluate[Sequence @@ ({#1, 0, 1} & ) /@ vars]]] Out[2]= {0.0923*Second, 1.2391040669224405} ...well done :-), but: In[3]:= TimeConstrained[Timing[NIntegrate[Inner[Divide, vars, {3, 2, 2, 10}]^(-1/2), Evaluate[Sequence @@ ({#1, 0, 1} & ) /@ vars], PrecisionGoal -> 30, WorkingPrecision -> 32]], 35, $Failed] Out[3]= $Failed In[4]:= Timing[N[Integrate[Inner[Divide, vars, {3, 2, 2, 10}]^(-1/2), Evaluate[Sequence @@ ({#1, 0, 1} & ) /@ vars]], 30]] Out[4]= {17.219*Second, 1.239104123885570005313026072763653619727834549813`30.} Direct approximation does not succeed in more than twice the time, exact integration and subsequent approximation needs. This example shows again that using exact expressions as far as possible is often a good choice, when high precision is wanted. The second example contains a call to RandomReal, which is not mentioned at http://reference.wolfram.com/mathematica/ref/RandomReal.html, because "1" is definitely not a range. Try for example Integrate[1,Prepend[1,myfavouritevariableletter]] to calculate Integrate[1,{x,0,1}]. Does this work in version 6?? I guess it does (and should) not. The new concept of a range introduces unnecessary inconsistencies. Or does that help page (RandomReal) just use incorrect terms? slightly confused greetings, Peter