[Octave-bug-tracker] [bug #37613] Octave precision/accuracy is much lower for quadgk

[David Bateman]

Follow-up Comment #7, bug #37613 (project octave):

Yes I think you're right the simplification will give the same results much
faster.

In fact I'm no longer testing the minimum relative size of an interval, but
rather the minimum distance between abscissa, since as you said the
"arguments" mentioned by Shampine probably mean the distance between abscissa
or evaluation points rather than the sub-interval length. 

The test is also after the conversion from the transformed interval to the
real evaluation points so I'm testing in the interval (a, b).

D.

    _______________________________________________________

Reply to this item at:

  <http://savannah.gnu.org/bugs/?37613>

_______________________________________________
  Message sent via/by Savannah
  http://savannah.gnu.org/