Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#10
![]() |
|||
|
|||
![]()
Dear Bill:
I too am appalled at the abandonment of a solid numerical analysis course in engineering education. Consider the common problem of solving a set of linear, independent algebraic equations. Students have to be shown that Cramer's rule will not work when using the (inevitable) finite resolution of a computer or calculator. Of course, some of the time Cramer's rule does work so it is important to teach students why it does not work in general. This is relevant to antennas where we routinely need to solve large sets of equations. When using a computer to perform calculations, one needs to think differently about methods than in the day when one needed to use large sheets of paper and a pen. If one is to use numbers, one needs to know the limitations of methods of use. 73 Mac N8TT -- J. Mc Laughlin; Michigan U.S.A. Home: "Bill Ogden" wrote in message ... Back in the dark ages, when I was in school, we were "encouraged" to take a numerical analysis course if we were interested in computers. (I was an EE major.) It was not an easy topic, but it made us well aware of the difference between correct results and computational precision. I was recently astonished to find that most computer science students have no concept of this area and even less interest in it. snip Bill W2WO |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Forum | |||
JvComm32 and other digisoft on WinXP | General | |||
Mismatch Uncertainty and an EZNEC transmission line sudy | Antenna | |||
EZNEC v. 4.0 at Dayton | Antenna | |||
3 antennas modeled with EZNEC | Antenna | |||
Eznec modeling loading coils? | Antenna |