Talk:Romberg's method

message: This article should be classified as a stub. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 140.160.11.159 (talk) 15:44, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not Enough Detail 

message: The python implementation is not very well written.  The first problem is that the while loop is an infinite loop that is then broken out of when a certain condition is met.  This is not very good practice as the loop should just run until the condition is met. Also the inline for loop finding the sums is also confusing.  In general the procedure could use more comments to explain what is going on as it is hard to follow.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.180.15.98 (talk) 19:44, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Source code is not particularly encouraged at Wikipedia, see WP:NOT. So I moved the code here. --Berland (talk) 20:11, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Python source code

message: Wth.  While True is sometimes the best way to do it because either the loop needs to be run once before you test for a condition, or it's more efficient to break out early than after the end of an iteration.  Either way it's a minor detail.  I guess the in-line for loop is confusing.  But I'd personally rather have some sort of source code, at all, rather than just a bunch of equations to try to deal with.  I personally wish Wikipedia would include more practical or leading information, as opposed to merely factual, particularly where mathematical articles are concerned.  
As for the comment about Wikipedia not encouraging source code, I looked at that WP:NOT page, and there was only one mention of 'source code' and it said that Wikipedia is not a repository for things that are *merely* collections of source code.  Using some source to convey an algorithm to accompany a mathematical concept *does not* seem like merely using Wikipedia as a repository for source code, to me.  I was disappointed to see it gone.  I only knew it was in the talk page because I went into the history to try to find it.  Not very convenient. Inhahe (talk) 21:30, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Python source code

message: The formula for R(n,m) when m=1 should be equal to Simpson's rule. If you expand the formula on this page you get (b-a)/6 (4f((a+b)/2) - f(a) - f(b)) but the correct one should be (b-a)/6 (4f((a+b)/2) + f(a) + f(b)). Or have I expanded the whole thing wrong???
Redeemer90 (talk) 03:28, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the formula for R(n,m) right 

message: The C-language implementation is quite awkward (check for i==1 in inner loop), difficult to follow (no comments), incomplete (where is the function "Trap"), inefficient (no re-use of the function evaluations from the previous row, use of "pow" for powers of two) and the description is wrong ("trapeze" vs. "Trap").
Is there any good reason for this implementation over any other being there? Would anybody be offended if I removed/replaced this?
Cheers, pedrito - talk -  10:09 03.11.2010
I have placed an implementation that is usable. Is this acceptable. I know it is preferable to not use code of a particular language, but given that the previous example didn't work is this a viable alternative at least in the short term?
KillerGardevoir (talk) 22:02, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  C-language implementation 

message: This article would make a lot more sense if it had a picture of an irregular shape being measured (beneath all the scary notation this is just a way to estimate area)and a chart of the extrapolation
written in simpler terms. (4MA -LA)/3, (16MA-LA) /15, (64 MA-LA)/63, ... where MA and LA stand for more accurate and less accurate respectively. This is a simple concept, but the article is so notation-heavy it would give a math professor a headache.JeffStickney (talk) 00:42, 2 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs a picture 

message: Sorry, didn't look wel. Madyno (talk) 22:30, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  R(0,0)