[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
RE: contourc - Octave vs Matlab
From: |
Big Muscle |
Subject: |
RE: contourc - Octave vs Matlab |
Date: |
Sun, 5 Apr 2009 00:00:08 +0200 |
I don't have simple example, but I can provide you report from Octave's
diary in an attachment.
And Matlab provides following contour matrix:
c =
Columns 1 through 11
1.0804 -5.6250 -5.9210 1.3143 -5.2871 -5.6250 1.0804
4.8132 -6.8916 -6.4375 -5.9388
5.0000 0.4556 10.2554 5.7364 9.1575 0.4556 5.0000
-4.6545 -11.9367 0 -10.2863
Column 12
4.8132
-4.6545
You can see that it is different. Octave generates one closed contour at
level 1.0804, but matlab generates two contours.
(I hope I'm responding to correct e-mail, I have never used mailing lists)
-----Original Message-----
From: Ben Abbott [mailto:address@hidden
Sent: Saturday, April 04, 2009 11:36 PM
To: Big Muscle
Cc: address@hidden
Subject: Re: contourc - Octave vs Matlab
On Apr 4, 2009, at 1:03 PM, Big Muscle wrote:
> Hello.
>
> Is Octave's contourc algorithm supposed to produced exactly same
> contours as Matlab algorithm? I would like to use Octave's source
> code to my application, but it doesn't provide same result as
> Matlab. The difference is that Matlab draws some countours at same
> level as two different contours, but Octave draws it as one.
>
> I also tried to use PLPlot algorithm, but it has completely inversed
> problem - it sometimes draws two closed contours where Matlab draws
> only one closed contour.
>
> I think my problem has something to do with saddle points where both
> algorithms use different techniques to choose which edges to connect.
> Is there something to do with this? Thank you!
>
> Tomas
I'm confused as to the specifics. Can you provide a simple example
illustrating the difference between Octave and Matlab?
Ben
diary
Description: Binary data