Talk:Relaxation (iterative method)
Appearance
(Redirected from Talk:Relaxation method)
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Relaxation (iterative method) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||
|
Over-focused
[edit]This article over-focuses on the a specific application of the method, needs to be expanded to the entire general concept. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.97.58.55 (talk • contribs) 02:24, October 21, 2007 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of the relaxation method applied to something else than the numerical solution of an elliptic p.d.e.? --Lambiam 11:39, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
- Can you give an example of a linear system of equations that does not arise from numerical partial differential equations? The article focus on a specific application in about 60% of the text body, while it does not explain at all what relaxation actually means. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.201.70.9 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
Error term on second-order central difference scheme
[edit]Shouldn't the error term on the second-order central difference scheme be O(h^2) instead of O(h^4) ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Runebarnkob (talk • contribs) 10:33, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I don't think so. In one dimension
- If you do this in two orthogonal directions and add to get as used in the equation for φ(x, y), you still have an error term of O(h4). --Lambiam 14:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the error term should still be the same as you expand the dimension. But I thought that the one dimensional second order three-point central difference scheme was
- Maybe I have a lack in my understanding of the BigO-notation. --Runebarnkob (talk) 04:20, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- I agree that the error term should still be the same as you expand the dimension. But I thought that the one dimensional second order three-point central difference scheme was
- That formula is equivalent with
- which is clearly too weak; it does not tell us that
- Use the Taylor expansion
- and the same with h replaced by −h, substituting it for φ(x±h) in the second-order difference formula, and you're done. --Lambiam 08:51, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
- That formula is equivalent with
- I agree with you now. I definitely had a problem with my understanding of the O(). Thanks for your patience, Lambiam. --Runebarnkob (talk) 09:55, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't be in the varphi(x,y), twice the h^2{\nabla}^2\varphi(x,y)\right)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.120.154.196 (talk) 18:30, 30 January 2011 (UTC)