[boost] Re: Re: Numerical Integration - continued

From: Dan Mcleran (dan.mcleran_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-22 12:32:09

"Victor A. Wagner, Jr." <vawjr_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
news:4.3.1.2.20021022090646.058358a0_at_mail.rudbek.com...
> At Tuesday 2002/10/22 08:31, Martin Weiser <weiser_at_[hidden]> wrote:
> [deleted]
>
> >Huh? What's the integral over (3.5,6.78,5.89,2.0) then? I figure you mean
> >summation instead of integration in this case, but I think this task is
> >sufficiently different from integration to justify an interface of its
> >own.
>
> This is exactly the kind of integration used in flight simulators where
the
> 'numbers' are coming from external inputs (e.g. the pilot).  Summation
> would be equivalent to "rectangular integration".  There are other models
> which may work better.  Though in the simulations we used to run, we
> _needed_ a signature something like:
>
> double integrate_step<method>(double next_delta_x, double next_delta_t);
>
> Where often, delta_t would be a constant over the "run".  Other times, it
> varied.
>

This was my situation as well. An external piece of hardware was collecting
and processing data and providing me with results, i.e. f(x). Knowing that
the delta-x was constant over the run, I was able to perform a numerical
integration to calculate the area under the curve, f(x).