Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
On 01/01/2008 08:19 PM, Ludwik Kowalski wrote:
..... The simulation software
I am using , I.P., seems to be highly reliable (consistent with
underlying physics).
"Highly reliable"? That statement would be more informative if
it were more specific and more quantitative:
-- What tests have been run?
-- Quantitatively, how good was the agreement with analytical
results?
-- Are these tests designed to be incisive? What classes
of bugs are they likely to detect? Are they appropriate to
the numerical methods IP is actually using?
-- What are the /limits/ of validity?
-- How do we know that IP did not simply incorporate the
analytic solution for simple cases? (That's what I would
have done.) Doesn't that mean that the results for non-
simple cases will be incomparably less accurate?