Re: residue() confusion

[Henry F. Mollet]

residue4.m as patched by Doug Stewart yields the same results.
Henry

octave-2.9.14:55> num = [1 2 3 4]
num =
   1   2   3   4
octave-2.9.14:60> den = conv(den,[1,2,1])
den =
     1     2    19    36    99   162    81

octave-2.9.14:61> [r,p,m,e] = residue4(num,den)
r =

   0.0280000 - 0.0000000i
   0.0200000 + 0.0000000i
  -0.0140000 - 0.0017037i
  -0.0011111 - 0.0633333i
  -0.0140000 + 0.0017037i
  -0.0011111 + 0.0633333i

p =

  -1.00000 - 0.00000i
  -1.00000 - 0.00000i
   0.00000 + 3.00000i
  -0.00000 + 3.00000i
   0.00000 - 3.00000i
  -0.00000 - 3.00000i

m = [](0x0)
e =

   1
   2
   1
   2
   1
   2


on 9/25/07 3:27 PM, A. Scottedward Hodel at address@hidden wrote:

> I have a kludgy but I think functional fix to residue.m.  It may
> still get confused if there's a big cluster of poles close by each
> other,.
> 
> Here's a simple test  code:
> 
>   num = [1 2 3 4]
>   den = conv([1,3*j],1,-3*j])
> den = conv([1,3*j],[1,-3*j])
> den = conv(den,den)
> den = conv(den,[1,2,1])
> [r,p,m,e] = residue(num,den)
> 
> with output:
> 
> r =
> 
>     0.0280000 + 0.0000000i
>     0.0200000 - 0.0000000i
>    -0.0140000 + 0.0017037i
>    -0.0011111 + 0.0633333i
>    -0.0140000 - 0.0017037i
>    -0.0011111 - 0.0633333i
> 
> p =
> 
>    -1.00000 + 0.00000i
>    -1.00000 + 0.00000i
>    -0.00000 - 3.00000i
>    -0.00000 - 3.00000i
>    -0.00000 + 3.00000i
>    -0.00000 + 3.00000i
> 
> m = [](0x0)
> e =
> 
>     1
>     2
>     1
>     2
>     1
>     2
>