tea.mathoverflow.net - Discussion Feed (Am I allowed to do non-rigorous numerical analysis?)2018-11-04T22:44:15-08:00http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/
Lussumo Vanilla & Feed Publisher
Nilima comments on "Am I allowed to do non-rigorous numerical analysis?" (16627)http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1178/am-i-allowed-to-do-nonrigorous-numerical-analysis/?Focus=16627#Comment_166272011-10-19T14:41:47-07:002018-11-04T22:44:15-08:00Nilimahttp://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/558/
My two-bits as a numerical analyst: it's entirely acceptable to state the computed 'a' is a numerical approximation to the desired 'a'. It's not OK in general to claim that the computed a is correct ...
Without knowing more about the setting it's hard to provide more concrete advice. However, consider the following scenario: a is a global minimizer of a function with many local minima. There may be a numerical strategy which is based on computing the residual, and the computed a may indeed reduce the residual to 10^-5. That doesn't imply a is close to the computed a.
I'm sorry to be nit-picky.]]>
quid comments on "Am I allowed to do non-rigorous numerical analysis?" (16621)http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1178/am-i-allowed-to-do-nonrigorous-numerical-analysis/?Focus=16621#Comment_166212011-10-19T06:51:35-07:002018-11-04T22:44:15-08:00quidhttp://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/583/
This seems like a reasonable question to me; some more details might or might not be required but even in the current form it seems alright to me.
This seems like a reasonable question to me; some more details might or might not be required but even in the current form it seems alright to me.
]]>
David Speyer comments on "Am I allowed to do non-rigorous numerical analysis?" (16620)http://mathoverflow.tqft.net/discussion/1178/am-i-allowed-to-do-nonrigorous-numerical-analysis/?Focus=16620#Comment_166202011-10-19T06:31:34-07:002018-11-04T22:44:15-08:00David Speyerhttp://mathoverflow.tqft.net/account/23/
The question http://mathoverflow.net/questions/78576/am-i-allowed-to-do-non-rigorous-numerical-analysis has one close vote at the moment. I think it is interesting, although obviously subjective, and ...
Basically, the question is the following. There is a real number a which plays an important role in the OP's paper. There is no closed formula for a, but he can approximate it numerically. If he publishes 5 digits of a, is that an implicit claim that he has rigorously proven a to lie in an interval of width 10^{-5}, or is it enough to have used numerical algorithms which are generally reliable?]]>