Re: Successive Over-Relaxation ... what is wrong? Improvements?

[Sergei Steshenko]

----- Original Message -----
> From: Joza <address@hidden>
> To: address@hidden
> Cc: 
> Sent: Saturday, November 3, 2012 1:34 AM
> Subject: Re: Successive Over-Relaxation ... what is wrong? Improvements?
> 
> Sorry, I forgot I shouldn't have such numbers there ... I'll replace the
> likes of j=999:1000 with j = n-1:n.
> 
> The code works fine for a 10x10 matrix that I tried. But Octave won't churn
> out an answer with 1000x1000. I'm quite new to sparse matrices so I'm
> wondering if there are ways to speed up the code or optimize it, perhaps by
> taking advantage of the sparse matrix's properties?
> 
> 
> 
> --
> View this message in context: 
> http://octave.1599824.n4.nabble.com/Successive-Over-Relaxation-what-is-wrong-Improvements-tp4646041p4646046.html
> Sent from the Octave - General mailing list archive at Nabble.com.


Insert some diagnostic print statements allowing you to monitor progress.

Depending on how you count, you may say that 100 x 100 in the middle of 10 x 10 
and 1000 x 1000 piece.

So, try 100 x 100 first.

Regards,
  Sergei.