svds.m change to avoid test failure

[John W. Eaton]

On 28-Feb-2010, Michael D. Godfrey wrote:

| Attached is the one line change.
| 
| Michael
| 
| 
| ----------------------------------------------------------------------
| # HG changeset patch
| # User Michael Godfrey <address@hidden>
| # Date 1267387707 28800
| # Node ID a6c5165a0522b1bc14aedc3e77276dcc15ef1928
| # Parent  1f11fabfa34957118b2a7c3a118f2e9e1c8cbd51
| avoid test failure in svds test
| 
| diff -r 1f11fabfa349 -r a6c5165a0522 scripts/sparse/svds.m
| --- a/scripts/sparse/svds.m   Sun Feb 28 12:32:16 2010 -0500
| +++ b/scripts/sparse/svds.m   Sun Feb 28 12:08:27 2010 -0800
| @@ -219,7 +219,7 @@
|  %! assert(flag,!1);
|  %! assert(s(end:-1:end-k+1), s2, 1e-10); 
|  %!testif HAVE_ARPACK
| -%! [u2,s2,v2,flag] = svds(a,k,0);
| +%! [u2,s2,v2,flag] = svds(a,k,0.05);
|  %! s2 = diag(s2);
|  %! assert(flag,!1);
|  %! assert(s(k:-1:1), s2, 1e-10); 

This may avoid the test failure, but I'm not sure it is best to do
that.

I know it is iterative, but it seems bad to me that the algorithm used
for svds can return different results on successive runs.  That kind
of behavior does not inspire confidence.  I'd rather not hide behavior
like that by changing the test.

jwe