Re: bug in residue.m

[Henry F. Mollet]

I had no problem with your example if I understood the problem correctly.
p appeared without having to sort. I had slight problem with inputing "den"
using copy/past from posting.
Octave 2.9.13 on Mac OS X.
Henry

octave-2.9.13:9> num = [1,0,1];
octave-2.9.13:11> den =\302\240 [1,0,18,0,81]
error: invalid character `?' (ASCII 194) near line 11, column 7
parse error:
  syntax error
>>> den =  [1,0,18,0,81]
         ^
octave-2.9.13:11> den = [1,0,18,0,81];

octave-2.9.13:13> [a,p,k,e] = residue(num,den)
a =

  8.4492e+06 - 3.9658e+06i
  8.4492e+06 + 3.9658e+06i
  -8.4492e+06 + 3.9658e+06i
  -8.4492e+06 - 3.9658e+06i

p =

   0.0000 + 3.0000i
   0.0000 - 3.0000i
  -0.0000 + 3.0000i
  -0.0000 - 3.0000i

k = [](0x0)
e =

   1
   1
   1
   1

octave-2.9.13:14> help residue
*****************************************************


on 9/18/07 8:44 AM, A. Scottedward Hodel at address@hidden wrote:

> Octave 2.9.13 on Mac OS X:
> The m-file below reveals a problem in residue.m,  in Octave's
> polynomial scripts.  I started to debug it, but the
> code is fairly intricate.  The problem is that the code fails to
> detect multiple roots.
> Consider the case:
> 
> octave:7> num = [1,0,1];
> octave:7> den =  [1,0,18,0,81];
> octave:8> [a,p,k,e] = residue(num,den)
> 
> fails to detect the multiple poles at +/- j3 on my machine.  The
> problem appears to be that residue expects the roots to be returned
> in a specific order.  The problem in this case is resolved by sorting
> the poles by their imaginary parts.
> 
> octave:9> %sort poles by imaginary part
> octave:9> [a,p,k,e] = residue(num,den)
> a =
> 
>    7.3527e-25 + 9.2593e-02i
>    2.2222e-01 + 2.3902e-09i
>    -3.6764e-25 - 9.2593e-02i
>    2.2222e-01 + 2.3902e-09i
> 
> p =
> 
>    -0.0000 - 3.0000i
>     0.0000 - 3.0000i
>     0.0000 + 3.0000i
>    -0.0000 + 3.0000i
> 
> k = [](0x0)
> e =
> 
>     1
>     2
>     1
>     2
> 
> The change to residue.m is in the following diff:  Note This will fix
> my problem, but it can still break if two pairs of complex poles have
> the same imaginary part, e.g., if you have poles at
> 1+j, 1-j, -1+j, and -1-j,
> if they are sorted in  order of imaginary part
> -1+j,1+j,-1-j, 1-j,
> then the code will still fail to detect the multiplicity.  The
> details of the code are complicated enough that I can't propose a
> proper fix right now, but this patch will fix the problem cited above.
> 
> *** /sw/share/octave/2.9.13/m/polynomial/residue.m      Fri Sep  7
> 09:44:44 2007
> --- residue.m   Tue Sep 18 10:38:20 2007
> ***************
> *** 201,207 ****
> 
>      ## Find the poles.
> 
> !   p = roots (a);
>      lp = length (p);
> 
>      ## Determine if the poles are (effectively) zero.
> --- 201,207 ----
> 
>      ## Find the poles.
> 
> !   p = sortcom(roots (a), "im");
>      lp = length (p);
> 
>      ## Determine if the poles are (effectively) zero.
> 
> 
> A. Scottedward Hodel address@hidden
> http://homepage.mac.com/hodelas/tar
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Help-octave mailing list
> address@hidden
> https://www.cae.wisc.edu/mailman/listinfo/help-octave