<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic Do you know the value of the in Intel® oneAPI Math Kernel Library</title>
    <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Question-regarding-step-size-control-in-jacobix/m-p/945279#M14817</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;Do you know the value of the jacobian at x = 0? Even better, is it possible to write down an analytical expression that approximates the jacobian for small ||x|| ?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 03:58:43 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>mecej4</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2013-10-04T03:58:43Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Question regarding step size control in ?jacobix</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Question-regarding-step-size-control-in-jacobix/m-p/945278#M14816</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Hi Everyone,&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;I am using djacobix to differentiate a function which can only take positve inputs. As my program proceeds jacobix the point of interest approaches zero and eventually jacobix tries to evaluate the function with negative arguments.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;It seems to me that at some point the way jacobix is using the "eps" parameter changes; for large point of interest x the step size used in (what i assume is) finite differencing is&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;dx = (plus and minus) eps*x&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;which remains positive as x approaches zero. However at some point jacobix starts using&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;dx = (plus and minus) eps&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;resulting in negative arguments to the target function.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Can someone explain this behaviour so I can suppress it. I'm happy with a cluge that modifies the value of eps to avoid negative values if that is necessary - in which case knowing when jacobix changes behaviour is enough. If it's complicated I will probably write my own routine.&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Cheers!&lt;/P&gt;
&lt;P&gt;Jim&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 02 Oct 2013 19:07:37 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Question-regarding-step-size-control-in-jacobix/m-p/945278#M14816</guid>
      <dc:creator>Jim_G_1</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-02T19:07:37Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Do you know the value of the</title>
      <link>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Question-regarding-step-size-control-in-jacobix/m-p/945279#M14817</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;Do you know the value of the jacobian at x = 0? Even better, is it possible to write down an analytical expression that approximates the jacobian for small ||x|| ?&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 04 Oct 2013 03:58:43 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.intel.com/t5/Intel-oneAPI-Math-Kernel-Library/Question-regarding-step-size-control-in-jacobix/m-p/945279#M14817</guid>
      <dc:creator>mecej4</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2013-10-04T03:58:43Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

