http://stochastix.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/runge-kutta-in-haskell/ Sun, 07 Apr 2013 23:13:55 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ http://stochastix.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/runge-kutta-in-haskell/#comment-74588 Sun, 03 Mar 2013 00:48:15 +0000 http://stochastix.wordpress.com/?p=8298#comment-74588 This is enlightenment!

]]> http://stochastix.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/runge-kutta-in-haskell/#comment-73691 Sat, 10 Nov 2012 03:48:36 +0000 http://stochastix.wordpress.com/?p=8298#comment-73691 Indeed, it is. I merely declare what the list is. Only when I use take do I force the interpreter to actually compute stuff. Lazy evaluation truly is a beautiful thing.

]]> http://stochastix.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/runge-kutta-in-haskell/#comment-73689 Sat, 10 Nov 2012 00:19:03 +0000 http://stochastix.wordpress.com/?p=8298#comment-73689 In the first ghci session you display, you don’t give an upper limit for the interval you are solving the ODE on. Is that an example of lazy evaluation, done at the “take 11 xs_dec” line?

]]> http://stochastix.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/runge-kutta-in-haskell/#comment-73401 Tue, 09 Oct 2012 23:44:57 +0000 http://stochastix.wordpress.com/?p=8298#comment-73401 That seems like an awesome implementation. As you said, is quite succint. I’ll try to start doing simulations in Haskell.

]]>