Talk:Explicit and implicit methods

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Mathematics Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Mathematics, which collaborates on articles related to mathematics.
Mathematics rating:	Start Class	Mid Priority	Field: Applied mathematics
Please update this rating as the article progresses, or if the rating is inaccurate. Click to show/hide comments. Please add to or update the comments to suggest improvements to the article. Pretty decent. Needs more on how to solve the equation for implicit methods, connection with stability, PDE methods. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Systems, which collaborates on articles about the idea of systems. If you would like to help, you can edit this article or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the assessment scale. [FAQ]
???	This article has not yet received an importance rating within Systems.
Help with this template Comments: and implicit methods/Comments|action=edit}} edit – and implicit methods/Comments|action=history}} history – and implicit methods/Comments|action=watch}} watch – and implicit methods|action=purge}} refresh Pretty decent. Needs more on how to solve the equation for implicit methods, connection with stability, PDE methods. -- Jitse Niesen (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2007 (UTC)

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)

Yes, "instant" is best! So we agree. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 04:03, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

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)

[edit] Quadratic solution

Shouldn't the denominator of equation (4) be 2? --anon

Yes! Fixed, thanks. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2006 (UTC)