Talk:Explicit and implicit methods
|WikiProject Mathematics||(Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)|
Oleg Alexandrov's changes to my last edit improve the article. On two minor points I disagree, and have reverted:
"mathematical" simulation: as distinct from, for example, an electrical LCR circuit to simulate a differential equation.
The "next instance of time" is just wrong; I think you mean "instant". My "interval" is also plain wrong: I was thinking in terms of a delta-T, which it isn't (it's late at night, or maybe I'm just stupid).
Pol098 03:52, 11 March 2006 (UTC) (amended)
- I like your final edit. I think the wording is much better like this. Your article I see; nice one. Pol098 04:12, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
Shouldn't the denominator of equation (4) be 2? --anon
Accuracy and CFL condition
I've never used implicit methods, but am aware of their use in avoiding the 'stiffness' of stiff systems. Could someone add to the article a comment on their accuracy regarding by how much one has violated the CFL condition? I'm told that it's something like , but don't know enough about it to be sure.
...I'm also told that one only ever *uses* implicit methods when you're seeking a final steady state, since you know when you've found the right answer. This is plainly not true, but again, could someone comment on their use in strongly time-dependent systems? 7daysahead (talk) 21:51, 10 July 2010 (UTC)
No Exact Solution?
I object to the statement "In the vast majority of cases, the equation to be solved when using an implicit scheme is much more complicated than a quadratic equation, and no exact solution exists". In typical cases, an exact solution certainly exists, but there is just not a formula to compute it. The wording of the end of the sentence should to changed as to not be confusing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 02:26, 5 October 2010 (UTC)