[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Method Option
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg90931] Re: Method Option
*From*: mark mcclure <mcmcclur at unca.edu>
*Date*: Wed, 30 Jul 2008 03:52:24 -0400 (EDT)
*References*: <g6h5dc$h0u$1@smc.vnet.net> <g6matp$i1k$1@smc.vnet.net>
On Jul 29, 6:11 am, Peter Breitfeld <ph... at t-online.de> wrote:
> this is a good first try to find the possible methods, but not
> exhausting.
> I posted this message to get more insight when reading a post from
> Jens Peer Kuska who put a method option to ContourPlot like this:
> plt1 = ContourPlot[Sin[x*y], {x, -Pi, Pi}, {y, -Pi, Pi},
> MaxRecursion -> 0, PlotPoints -> 64,
> Method -> {"Refinement" -> {"CellDecomposition" -> "Quad"}}]
>
> So I believe, Methods to be defined as strings are even harder to find.
Interesting. On the other hand:
In[1]:= Eigenvalues[RandomReal[{0,1},{20,20}], 1, Method -> Bogus]
Eigenvalues::emeth:
The method specified by Method -> Bogus
should be either Automatic or Arnoldi.
Note, however, that Arnoldi is not a built in object; Method-
>"Arnoldi"
is the appropriate way to call it. Furthermore, there area quite a few
other possible Method options for Eigenvalues, as documented in
the linear algebra documentation. The trick I mentioned, incidentally,
comes from one of Michael Trott's books. So, I'm beginning to
wonder if the internal handling of Bogus options has been relaxed.
Mark McClure
Prev by Date:
**SEM: New third-party Mathematica application for supercomputing**
Next by Date:
**Re: remove higher orders terms from mathemtica's result**
Previous by thread:
**Re: Method Option**
Next by thread:
**ParametricPlot precision problem**
| |