Re: [boost] Re: Re: Numerical Integration - continued

From: Martin Weiser (weiser_at_[hidden])
Date: 2002-10-23 03:28:18

On Dienstag, 22. Oktober 2002 19:16, Dan Mcleran wrote:
> "Martin Weiser" <weiser_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> news:200210221731.46867.weiser_at_zib.de...
>
> On Dienstag, 22. Oktober 2002 16:56, Dan Mcleran wrote:
> > "Neal D. Becker" <nbecker_at_[hidden]> wrote in message
> > news:x88r8eiedu6.fsf_at_rpppc1.md.hns.com...

> > I also had a scenario where I was being fed the results of f(x) by a
> > piece of hardware and I needed to do a numerical integration over
> > these results. So, in this case, one has no idea what f(x) is, they
> > only have a container of the results, vData. I was proposing that
> > there be algorithms to perform numerical integration over the results
> > of f(x) without having to know the parameters, i.e. x values.
>
> 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.

> Martin,
>
> What I mean in this case is I was being fed power numbers at specific
> frequency increments. Knowing the delta-x, one can integrate over the
> range of f(x) values via the trapezoidal rule, simpson's rule, others.

Neal, 

sorry for the ironic comment above. I figured you mean this situation. 

However, the assumption of equidistant integration nodes (constant dx), 
and the assumption of known dx (didn't seem to be given as parameter, but 
your can easily change that, of course), is quite a specific setup, and 
may be totally different from what you'd want to have for integrating 
functions you can evaluate wherever you like. 

Thus I think these two tasks are different enough to justify different 
interfaces. 

Yours,
Martin

-- 
Dr. Martin Weiser            Zuse Institute Berlin
weiser_at_[hidden]                Scientific Computing
http://www.zib.de/weiser     Numerical Analysis and Modelling