network profile
| bio | website | |
|---|---|---|
| location | Universidade de São Paulo, Brazil | |
| age | 28 | |
| visits | member for | 1 year, 4 months |
| seen | Apr 19 at 14:48 | |
| stats | profile views | 72 |
I am currently a post-doc at the Physics department at the University of Sao Paulo. My interests are in Statistical Physics, stochastic processes and magnetism. More importantly, I really value simple and solid explanations to important problems in any science.
|
Jul 27 |
answered | Methods to speed up numerical NDSolve, NIntegrate, |
|
Jul 26 |
comment |
Efficient Langevin Equation Solver I just tried running an index through through the NestList with pre-generated RandomVariate; apparently it is slower. |
|
Jul 26 |
awarded | Commentator |
|
Jul 26 |
comment |
Efficient Langevin Equation Solver acl, your timing is the same as mine i Think. In the first one you compute two simulations (data1 and data2) and in the second one you compute only one. Both have similar run times, and given the simplicity of NestList + the ability to accept any function, I don't really see much advantage. |
|
Jul 26 |
comment |
Efficient Langevin Equation Solver I don't think so. This only generates the random numbers once. $r$ must be re-computed within each iteration. Ideally this would be done with r = RandomVariate[NormalDistribution[0,s],{m,n}]. But then you can't really nest this matrix; or at least I don't really know how. |
|
Jul 26 |
comment |
Efficient Langevin Equation Solver Hi Jagra. I thought about using a single RandomVariate. But I couldn't really figure out how to efficiently Nest that. |
|
Jul 26 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Jul 26 |
asked | Efficient Langevin Equation Solver |
|
Jul 23 |
awarded | Nice Question |
|
Jul 23 |
awarded | Supporter |
|
Jul 23 |
comment |
Circuit drawing in Mathematica Wow. This is awesome Jens. Thank you very very much. |
|
Jul 23 |
asked | Circuit drawing in Mathematica |
|
Jul 18 |
comment |
Mathematica + Numerical Recipes Thanks Szabolcs. I'll start working in this right away. |
|
Jul 18 |
comment |
Mathematica + Numerical Recipes Sorry Andreas. That is not the point. I am sure you understand that different languages/platforms are better at different types of problems. By combining NR with Mathematica, my goal is to have a unified access to both of them. I am sorry, I don't want to turn this into a programming lenguage's discussion; my question was technical and I appreciate everyone's feedback. |
|
Jul 18 |
comment |
Mathematica + Numerical Recipes (continuation) I have tried to implement this on Mathematica in many ways but with NR the results are always much faster. The reason, at least for me, is simple: there is almost no overhang on the latter. This is the sort of problems I am interested: comparing platforms and finding the most efficient for each problem. |
|
Jul 18 |
comment |
Mathematica + Numerical Recipes Andreas, I agree. No platform is perfect, and the key is in exploiting the good routines of each one. Here is an example: a while ago I was solving the following somewhat general problem: find the local minima of a function starting at some specified point; then change the function slightly and find a new minima starting from the previous point; do this sequel toy a bunch of times. Since we are always close to the min, this Should require only a few function evaluations and thus be quite fast. |
|
Jul 18 |
comment |
Mathematica + Numerical Recipes Hi Ruebenko, I appreciate the reply. I have the habit of comparing Mathematica and NR whenever possible and I know some Mathematica libraries are quite optimized. However, the habilitation if easily switching between one and the other is what I ultimately strive. For instance, sometimes I write code using NR and call it from Mathematica using terminal syntax + ReadList, which I know is not very efficient. |
|
Jul 17 |
asked | Mathematica + Numerical Recipes |
|
Jul 15 |
awarded | Scholar |
|
Jul 15 |
accepted | Efficiently Constructing Rank One Approximations for a Matrix using SVD |
